One of the prejudicial building blocks that hate-siters have used against David Bain, and indeed his family, was that they were dysfunctional, that David hated his father, that David was conspiring against his father by siding with his mother in the marital difficulties the family were having. Also that David was lazy, merely a 'paper boy.'
Personally, I don't have any problems with what jobs people choose to get themselves ahead. I can easily understand why doing a paper round suited David. First of all he was a sports nut of sorts. Anything sporty he was into it, and a paper round over a tough terrain was training - getting paid for it was bonus. It should be also understood that David has a busy life, mostly involving the theatre and music - the types of pursuit that set him apart into a group we all understand that exist. The type of people who are creative, who have the courage and mindset to 'go out' in front of an audience, to be damned or applauded by doing what they love. David was leading a full and productive life, some would say a life to be envious of because he had the courage to do the things he loved, productions and music. Of course it suits the hang bainers to trim out those details, leave gaps so that they can paint a picture of an aimless young man. Insulting enough that might be, and against all the evidence, but of course fertile ground for hate-siters.
Parker and his filthy mob also wanted the public to believe that the Bain family was dysfunctional. David denied that both in statements and in evidence. David at no point was derogatory toward any of his family, in fact he presented himself as somebody deeply involved, and caring of his family. In the way that is understandable he had a different take on the police and ultimately the hate-siters view of the family. He said they were close, that 'mums' reliance on the swing of a pendulum was odd. In all David supported all of his family and deeply cared for them, he also admitted that his hope that his parents difficulties would be resolved. He was a typical, caring young man who looked up to his father and who more than anything wanted his family unit to remain complete. That is the real David Bain, from the police and Court records - a thoroughly loyal and caring man. He wasn't involved in any plans to exclude his father from the family, his hope was for the opposite. Even the weekend before the tragedy the father and two brothers were out on boy's own winter dip. This isn't my story or my account, it's from the police records. In fact as I progress through the book it is the police record that is most at odds with the way David was painted by the prosecution and later by the dreaded sisters of the dead.
Remember if you will now that it was the police that called the house filthy with maggots in the kitchen. Of course we have no idea when the maggots might have hatched, but an assumption could be made, it was some time during the period of that morning of the killings or the long hours afterwards as the abortive police inquiry drew itself toward the wrong conclusion. Consider also that the dirty house, or the idea of one, the dysfunctional family or the idea of one - gathered a prejudice against the sole survivor David. The more that could be heaped on the family generally, the more that was heaped on David and took the focus away from the killer Robin. The police hid in their files the statement of Robin's friend, the psychologist Orphen Matches, who said that before the familicide Robin was 'gaunt, haggard and depressed.' The police and prosecution didn't want the jury to know that, nor do the hate-siters want the public to know that now. Kent Parker wants the truth silenced, suppressed and contorted into a misrepresentation that might cause hatred of an innocent man.
Parker has a stake in trying to retry David, in diverting people from the truth, and it is to do with his own ego. His own fragile hate-filled self and the inevitable embarrassment of knowing the truth will out. But his stake is bigger than that, it's do with his whole future, his destiny in fact as being fully revealed for being a person of hate and deceit, a person that wanted to burn books and hide the truth in order to escape his own humiliation and the very trial or his own character that looms before him.
More on this folks later, more on how the Crown sold a picture inconsistent with the truth, a picture designed to overcome the fact they had, in premature haste, captured an innocent man who they wouldn't let go for fear of becoming apparent as fools. Even there they were mistaken, because anybody would accept a mistake, a step back to consider, a concession of being wrong because that is life - but to continue with a lie, that all but might kill a young man and the reputation of his family is simply wicked.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Myth that nobody spoke for Robin Bain.
With the acquittal of David Bain intact despite a flood of misinformation and misunderstanding of the evidence of Robin's suicide, one of the things that continues to drive the hate-siters is the protestation 'that nobody speaks for Robin.'
On the surface one could be influenced by that. The very thought that a dead man was unable to defend himself, was a situation that appealed to the less-practical minded and those unsatisfied by anything other than conflict. However, nothing could be further from the truth. An entire police force spoke for Robin, Crown Law and associated offices spoke for Robin as well with their decision that it was either Robin or David that had killed the Bain family, Margaret, Arawa, Lanient and Stephen. It could be even argued that the Courts spoke for Robin, I don't mean by the Appeal Court Decision that was overturned, but by the conduct of trials and appeals that combined to facilitate the effort to prove it was David, not Robin.
The cost of speaking for Robin has been over $20 million at this point, and continues to rise. From the time the Privy Council quashed David's conviction there was a full time team of detectives working on the case numbering in the mid twenties, they did that for two years, there were all the forensic costs added to that, plus advice and specialist opinions - it appears there was no restraint on the costs of shoring up the already failed case against David. Even the decision to hold a retrial, at a cost of $10 million is distinctly questionable once the forensic evidence produced at the retrial is examined. It needs to be asked why the Crown continued on promoting Robin's innocence when his hands showed all the signs of his being involved in the killings and analysis of the blood spatter confirmed his suicide. I've spoken before about the Crown Pathologists Dempster only discovering before the retrial that his staff's photos of the blood smears on Robin's hands had not been used, instead replaced by others that did not show the blood. The letter Dempster wrote had a strong subtext that one could assume was an implied suggestion that the evidence of the blood smears, and the newer awareness for Dempster that body's could gurgle long after death made a trial unnecessary.
If Dempster had some misgivings, and taking into account that he conceded at the trial that suicide 'was quite feasible' it's plain that evidence or lack of evidence wasn't diverting the Crown from the speaking for Robin. It was a poor decision to proceed and something akin to the Civil law of discovery under Judicial advice perhaps might have helped, but it seems from the applications made to dismiss the proceedings the Courts were too influenced by 'public interest' that time has prove was in part generated by those associated with or sympathetic to the prosecuting process.
Taken to a conclusion, everything that could possibly done to speak for Robin as not committing familicide was done, some evidence which didn't speak for him was hidden. Speaking for Robin has cost the country over 20 million with more to add, it's cost David Bain is an almost immeasurable amount that will be difficult to fairly assess. But no person, unless corrupted by hate, could ever not acknowledge that Robin was spoken for, and very loudly, so loud at times that Justice wasn't heard.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
'Our' juror emerges - to have links to Kent Parker?
There is no doubt that Kent Parker lies his head off, but that doesn't mean everything he says is a lie. It's fairly clear he's not a quick thinker judged by the fact that he was warned about defamation, continued and now faces 100s of defamation charges.
I need to go back 2010 when news broke that Martin Van Beynan had been warned by The Justice Department to stay away from members of the Bain jury post trial. In fact it seems now they should have brought charges against him and perhaps there is good reason now to reconsider the laying of charges because of other controversy which has since followed. Van Beynan has been at the forefront of promoting himself as an expert on the Bain case, and clearly is somebody who has admitted in his own writings that he doesn't have a neutral position on the Bain case or indeed, also taken from his writing, on Joe Karam for that matter.
At this point I should mention the two primary hate-sites Counterspin, and Justice(sic) for Robin Bain. Parker is involved in both of them and early on they were 'open' sites, where anybody could read the contents and avail themselves of 'the facts' of the Bain case according to the views of Parker and others of his kind. Late in 2009 the sites suddenly shut down. The reason for that would become apparent later, they'd been warned, probably a 'cease and desist' letter about publishing defamatory material. Eventually, when the sites re-opened they had 'inner sanctums' no doubt places where some rather sick people could say what they liked about the Bain case, in fact make things up, and have it kept secret. Not only that they had a platform from which to launch attacks as they did recently against MightyApe, BeattiesBook Blog, The Justice Conference, KiwiBlog and of course the somewhat compliant to their cause Trade Me message boards.
And attacks they did launch, against people who opposed their views and against their families or children as well. These sites gave independent operators like Annette Curran, Christine Williams and Glenda O Brien a 'home.' Also provided a 'credible' place for the mournful Melanie White to write 'confessions' and other nonsense. Though the main, and most dangerous, aspect of the new sites was that it gave some veneer of credibility and for awhile the media took an interest, until the wheels began to fall off. It was during this time of comparative credibility that the sites were populated by some people who would never consider stalking other nzers and who were not dishonest. Of course at this point Parker could not have realised that his construction of a vehicle to spread a 'hate' message was deeply flawed, not only because his site was easy to find a way into, but primarily there were those already members who would soon flee as the true purpose of the site's took shape taking their stories and information with them. Additionally, the 'soldiers' such as Willams and Ralph Taylor, Bill Rodie etc would take the message out as planned to other message boards but at the same time betray the content of the home site, its members and it's contacts.
They wrote about contacting Van Beynan in a quite casual way which gave the impression that if he was not a member he was conducting free exchanges with Parker and the others. Of course the hate-sites credibility folded quickly, their forums would not tolerate any conversation that included the idea that Robin, rather that David, was guilty, the sites would not 'allow' any disagreement on the 'evidence' the hate-siters had. It was there way or the highway, far from a place of free discussion or freedom of speech. Purkiss in particular acted like a 'bovver' boy encouraging Kent to ban people who rejected Robin's innocence or who, as in my case, warned them to watch themselves least they got sued. Soon the media were less interested and when the defamation charges were laid the sites, and Parker himself, became pariah like to all but a few like minded individuals.
Move forward to, well yesterday, and what to we have from Kent Parker as an aged report of a Juror writing to the Justice Department emerges again. We have Parker and other hate-siters milking if for all it's worth, in fact implying they know what is in the letter, then late at night Parker under a non-de-plume makes this surprising statement;
'I don't think it is a matter of integrity. Jurors do their duty to the Crown, not to themselves. It appears from the recent news of juror misconduct that the word 'integrity' already rules out several member of the jury, and that our juror who complained would safely remain in the 'most' that are left behind once those jurors have been eliminated by your 'integrity purge.''
newzeal2 #219
Do we believe him when he says 'our' juror. Personally, I don't want to. The thought is abhorrent, an apparent attempt to corrupt or devalue something which is considered sacrosanct - the independence of a Jury or juror. What we do know is that for some reason the Justice Department saw fit to warn van beynan to stay away from Bain Jurors. We also know that Kent and others from his group have had recorded having contact with van beynan. What we didn't know until yesterday was that Parker apparently considers one of the jurors his or presumably in some way the property of the members or associates of his sites. Not a good look folks, a very bad bad look.
The Justice Department is reported to have decided not to send on the Juror's letter to Justice Binnie when he considers the compensation claim, so presumably nothing of material value to the compensation claim is contained in the letter. But because of the need for 'open' justice and misgivings arising from what little the public actually know on this matter, I think the Department should consider releasing some further statement as to Parker's 'ownership' claim, and also on the matter of the full extent of approaches by van beynan or any others, known to the department, to Jurors, explain if any action has been taken, will be in the future and if there are now specific directives for the media in cases like this. Records remain of 'conversations' within the hate-sites of having 'got' a juror or 'another juror' - at the very least showing the members were busy trying to track down the identities of jurors. The site members even publicly published claims about jurors fed to them presumably by the media, or someone within the media.
If there is any doubt that Kent knows individual jurors or one from the other, he showed that he did. How would Kent Parker, not from Christchurch, who never attended the trial, who is not part of the Crown, the Justice system, or the Police - know one juror from another? Because he, and others have been stalking and approaching them.
'No, not the same juror at all.'
newzeal2 #317
Parker let another cat out of the bag last night, one that might have a big financial effect on himself and one of his hate-site administrators and current TM thread starters - but that's for another time.
I need to go back 2010 when news broke that Martin Van Beynan had been warned by The Justice Department to stay away from members of the Bain jury post trial. In fact it seems now they should have brought charges against him and perhaps there is good reason now to reconsider the laying of charges because of other controversy which has since followed. Van Beynan has been at the forefront of promoting himself as an expert on the Bain case, and clearly is somebody who has admitted in his own writings that he doesn't have a neutral position on the Bain case or indeed, also taken from his writing, on Joe Karam for that matter.
At this point I should mention the two primary hate-sites Counterspin, and Justice(sic) for Robin Bain. Parker is involved in both of them and early on they were 'open' sites, where anybody could read the contents and avail themselves of 'the facts' of the Bain case according to the views of Parker and others of his kind. Late in 2009 the sites suddenly shut down. The reason for that would become apparent later, they'd been warned, probably a 'cease and desist' letter about publishing defamatory material. Eventually, when the sites re-opened they had 'inner sanctums' no doubt places where some rather sick people could say what they liked about the Bain case, in fact make things up, and have it kept secret. Not only that they had a platform from which to launch attacks as they did recently against MightyApe, BeattiesBook Blog, The Justice Conference, KiwiBlog and of course the somewhat compliant to their cause Trade Me message boards.
And attacks they did launch, against people who opposed their views and against their families or children as well. These sites gave independent operators like Annette Curran, Christine Williams and Glenda O Brien a 'home.' Also provided a 'credible' place for the mournful Melanie White to write 'confessions' and other nonsense. Though the main, and most dangerous, aspect of the new sites was that it gave some veneer of credibility and for awhile the media took an interest, until the wheels began to fall off. It was during this time of comparative credibility that the sites were populated by some people who would never consider stalking other nzers and who were not dishonest. Of course at this point Parker could not have realised that his construction of a vehicle to spread a 'hate' message was deeply flawed, not only because his site was easy to find a way into, but primarily there were those already members who would soon flee as the true purpose of the site's took shape taking their stories and information with them. Additionally, the 'soldiers' such as Willams and Ralph Taylor, Bill Rodie etc would take the message out as planned to other message boards but at the same time betray the content of the home site, its members and it's contacts.
They wrote about contacting Van Beynan in a quite casual way which gave the impression that if he was not a member he was conducting free exchanges with Parker and the others. Of course the hate-sites credibility folded quickly, their forums would not tolerate any conversation that included the idea that Robin, rather that David, was guilty, the sites would not 'allow' any disagreement on the 'evidence' the hate-siters had. It was there way or the highway, far from a place of free discussion or freedom of speech. Purkiss in particular acted like a 'bovver' boy encouraging Kent to ban people who rejected Robin's innocence or who, as in my case, warned them to watch themselves least they got sued. Soon the media were less interested and when the defamation charges were laid the sites, and Parker himself, became pariah like to all but a few like minded individuals.
Move forward to, well yesterday, and what to we have from Kent Parker as an aged report of a Juror writing to the Justice Department emerges again. We have Parker and other hate-siters milking if for all it's worth, in fact implying they know what is in the letter, then late at night Parker under a non-de-plume makes this surprising statement;
'I don't think it is a matter of integrity. Jurors do their duty to the Crown, not to themselves. It appears from the recent news of juror misconduct that the word 'integrity' already rules out several member of the jury, and that our juror who complained would safely remain in the 'most' that are left behind once those jurors have been eliminated by your 'integrity purge.''
newzeal2 #219
Do we believe him when he says 'our' juror. Personally, I don't want to. The thought is abhorrent, an apparent attempt to corrupt or devalue something which is considered sacrosanct - the independence of a Jury or juror. What we do know is that for some reason the Justice Department saw fit to warn van beynan to stay away from Bain Jurors. We also know that Kent and others from his group have had recorded having contact with van beynan. What we didn't know until yesterday was that Parker apparently considers one of the jurors his or presumably in some way the property of the members or associates of his sites. Not a good look folks, a very bad bad look.
The Justice Department is reported to have decided not to send on the Juror's letter to Justice Binnie when he considers the compensation claim, so presumably nothing of material value to the compensation claim is contained in the letter. But because of the need for 'open' justice and misgivings arising from what little the public actually know on this matter, I think the Department should consider releasing some further statement as to Parker's 'ownership' claim, and also on the matter of the full extent of approaches by van beynan or any others, known to the department, to Jurors, explain if any action has been taken, will be in the future and if there are now specific directives for the media in cases like this. Records remain of 'conversations' within the hate-sites of having 'got' a juror or 'another juror' - at the very least showing the members were busy trying to track down the identities of jurors. The site members even publicly published claims about jurors fed to them presumably by the media, or someone within the media.
If there is any doubt that Kent knows individual jurors or one from the other, he showed that he did. How would Kent Parker, not from Christchurch, who never attended the trial, who is not part of the Crown, the Justice system, or the Police - know one juror from another? Because he, and others have been stalking and approaching them.
'No, not the same juror at all.'
newzeal2 #317
Parker let another cat out of the bag last night, one that might have a big financial effect on himself and one of his hate-site administrators and current TM thread starters - but that's for another time.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Credible Kent bites the dust
Shortly after going on that bizarre radio show listened to by 3 blokes and a dog in the out backs of Aussie somewhere, where Kent portrayed himself as an underdog, the man next door type that was being picked on, and pointing out he wouldn't mind a donation or 2- he blew it straight away.
Probably giggling with excitement, and understanding he was being blocked from his hate-rants both in NZ and Australia he found somewhere else on the internet. A book review blog, and book 'review' opportunity that wasn't to be missed. He took some friends with him, including everyone's old favourite Christine Williams, an Auckland school teacher, hate-siter and frothy mouthed stalker.
Emboldened by the opportunity to spit the dummy that he had needed to keep sucking on during the radio 'interview' he was back to what he does best, deceit and misadventure. I have to admit it must have been hard for Kent to appear credible for 2 hours what with his mate Purkiss wanting to hang himself and show host vinnie eastwood howling eagerly at a poster of the moon on his wall. Kent must have just wanted to let it hang out, or what little he has to hang out, there on Mighty Ape was the opportunity.
In the following you'll see that Kent is the third 'reviewer' is Kent. The same guy acting with some reserve on the radio, and thinking he was getting away with it, letting it all out in an environment where he thought he wouldn't be known. His ally Christine also used her own name, the other 4 are unknown at this stage. But a dumbo or two remain among the balance. Don linked the 'reviews' to the Trade Me site, where he operates under an account that can be traced. The person calling himself 'Aileen' did the same. Of course the publishers, distributors and sellers of the books have a financial interest at stake here. 4 identified people have conspired with 2 other unidentified to this point to financially hazard the commercial expectation of the book. That is not to forget, that many sites have blocked these people for attacking reviewers of the book who were positive in their reviews, including that of a leading legal academic who opinion was that the book moves the debate for those oppose the Jury's finding 'to prove' that Robin didn't suicide.
But back to Christine, Kent and little Don's efforts. Caught with their pant's down? Yes completely, and who by? Themselves. Kent would have been beside himself to have another opportunity to 'have a go' at Karam, a sneak attack asare all his attacks against families and children are. Christine Williams would have needed no encouragement because she has published her fantasy of watching people being hung while shining a torch on them. The link to TM must have seemed an inspired choice because the sisters had a thread running there started and used by people who hadn't read the book, a 'manufactured' chance to rubbish it. But footprints or fingerprints were carried and deposited nicely showing the commercial attack to parties with an interest in benefiting from their investment in publishing this book.
But what of the public. Are the public not entitled to read a book that has been said by Mike Hosking to be the only book needed to be read to understand the Bain murder/suicide and the innocence of David. Or seek more information that what was shown on the successful 60 minute show last Sunday? Kent in his petulant way has talked about freedom of speech but we see his group has done everything they can to stop David speaking in Australia next month.Meanwhile Kent believes he is being 'excluded' by the press, seemingly unaware that most of nz are aware that he faces 100s of defamation charges and operates hate-sites.
However, what can his real fear be in people learning about the Bain case. Does he fear it exposes him and his fellow hate-siters. Is he afraid that his lies have been made evident. Is he afraid that the public would reach the conclusion of the legal academic, or it simply his hate for Karam getting the better of him once again. Whatever it might be, it does confirm that he has no credibility, is dishonest and why his hate-sites has 'inner sanctums' or places of worship for only the enlightened. One sick puppy.
If you read this Kent you will know why the Justice Department shut the door on your 'submissions' and phony petition and you will know why all of your hate-siters have well and truly lost their credibility.
"Great fantasy stuff."
"Not a good novel at all."
"More of the same old rubbish"
"Very disappointing"
"A complete waste of money."
"Classify as Fiction"
"Discover the Truth"
Probably giggling with excitement, and understanding he was being blocked from his hate-rants both in NZ and Australia he found somewhere else on the internet. A book review blog, and book 'review' opportunity that wasn't to be missed. He took some friends with him, including everyone's old favourite Christine Williams, an Auckland school teacher, hate-siter and frothy mouthed stalker.
Emboldened by the opportunity to spit the dummy that he had needed to keep sucking on during the radio 'interview' he was back to what he does best, deceit and misadventure. I have to admit it must have been hard for Kent to appear credible for 2 hours what with his mate Purkiss wanting to hang himself and show host vinnie eastwood howling eagerly at a poster of the moon on his wall. Kent must have just wanted to let it hang out, or what little he has to hang out, there on Mighty Ape was the opportunity.
In the following you'll see that Kent is the third 'reviewer' is Kent. The same guy acting with some reserve on the radio, and thinking he was getting away with it, letting it all out in an environment where he thought he wouldn't be known. His ally Christine also used her own name, the other 4 are unknown at this stage. But a dumbo or two remain among the balance. Don linked the 'reviews' to the Trade Me site, where he operates under an account that can be traced. The person calling himself 'Aileen' did the same. Of course the publishers, distributors and sellers of the books have a financial interest at stake here. 4 identified people have conspired with 2 other unidentified to this point to financially hazard the commercial expectation of the book. That is not to forget, that many sites have blocked these people for attacking reviewers of the book who were positive in their reviews, including that of a leading legal academic who opinion was that the book moves the debate for those oppose the Jury's finding 'to prove' that Robin didn't suicide.
But back to Christine, Kent and little Don's efforts. Caught with their pant's down? Yes completely, and who by? Themselves. Kent would have been beside himself to have another opportunity to 'have a go' at Karam, a sneak attack asare all his attacks against families and children are. Christine Williams would have needed no encouragement because she has published her fantasy of watching people being hung while shining a torch on them. The link to TM must have seemed an inspired choice because the sisters had a thread running there started and used by people who hadn't read the book, a 'manufactured' chance to rubbish it. But footprints or fingerprints were carried and deposited nicely showing the commercial attack to parties with an interest in benefiting from their investment in publishing this book.
But what of the public. Are the public not entitled to read a book that has been said by Mike Hosking to be the only book needed to be read to understand the Bain murder/suicide and the innocence of David. Or seek more information that what was shown on the successful 60 minute show last Sunday? Kent in his petulant way has talked about freedom of speech but we see his group has done everything they can to stop David speaking in Australia next month.Meanwhile Kent believes he is being 'excluded' by the press, seemingly unaware that most of nz are aware that he faces 100s of defamation charges and operates hate-sites.
However, what can his real fear be in people learning about the Bain case. Does he fear it exposes him and his fellow hate-siters. Is he afraid that his lies have been made evident. Is he afraid that the public would reach the conclusion of the legal academic, or it simply his hate for Karam getting the better of him once again. Whatever it might be, it does confirm that he has no credibility, is dishonest and why his hate-sites has 'inner sanctums' or places of worship for only the enlightened. One sick puppy.
If you read this Kent you will know why the Justice Department shut the door on your 'submissions' and phony petition and you will know why all of your hate-siters have well and truly lost their credibility.
8 out of 10 people found this review helpful:
"Great fantasy stuff."
Great fantasy stuff. Up there in league with Stephen Kings latest, phen king 22.11.63. We should be grateful we have such a great fantasy writer in our midst. Ambush- Yes, the family were ambushed.
9 out of 12 people found this review helpful:
"Not a good novel at all."
Read Trial by ambush and was stunned that Joe Karam thinks Robin Bain did the murders even though there is no evidence linking him to any of the 4 separate murder scenes. Joe seems to think Robin took off all his bloody clothes and that David very kindly washed them for him.
8 out of 11 people found this review helpful:
"More of the same old rubbish"
If you want to read about someone being unfairly slandered in their death, then this is the book for you. If you read the two previous books, then don't expect anything new. The only trial by ambush was the Defence's inclusion of a copier representative at the last minute in the retrial, who ended up providing false testimony.
6 out of 8 people found this review helpful:
"Very disappointing"
Had been waiting a long time for this book to come out. Had hoped to finally learn something new, and discover how it was that a second jury found David bain innocent, very disappointed, nothing new at all.
7 out of 10 people found this review helpful:
"A complete waste of money."
Why was I surprised that a man who had a huge financial interest in persuading me that David Bain was not guilty could not only not write a balanced book but was stupid enough to think I would believe him. A complete waste of money.
4 out of 7 people found this review helpful:
"Classify as Fiction"
Preposterous fantasy from Joe Karam who tries and fails to convince the reader of Robin Bains guilt. Only for true Karam followers.
2 out of 8 people found this review helpful:
"Very informative read"
Excellent book. It has a number of high resolution photos over which there can be no dispute. I disagree with most of the above reviews. This book has been very well researched references all of the information. I invite all to read it and decide on the evidence, as presented mostly by the Crown witnesses, who you think is guilty. You may just be surprised.
1 out of 8 people found this review helpful:
"Discover the Truth"
This book goes to the heart of the Bain case, thoroughly exposes all the evidence that was ignored and which pointed to Robin as the killer.
There are a group that fight Karam to hide the truth, even to misinforming you about this book. Read it for yourself. Make up your own mind.
There are a group that fight Karam to hide the truth, even to misinforming you about this book. Read it for yourself. Make up your own mind.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss - live on air!
Before moving to that I'll list 3 places that have completely stopped comment from the hate-siters.
1. The Message Board Seller, have a policy not to run Bain or Karam threads since an influx of posters there in 2010 led by Glenda O Brien and Christine Williams, the later making death threats as a way to promote her reasoned arguments.
2. The International Justice Conference, who had a influx of sisters protesting that David was speaking at the Conference in March. Yes, the same people who daily call for David to speak. Schizo?
3. Beatties Book Blog, who 'dared' to publish the foreword of 'Trial by Ambush.'
4.Trade Me, continues to host them of course, and allows them to post links.
This is all disturbing, most particularly to me the attack on a book blog. Most people appreciate books as wonderful things, some with a life of their own, a chance to learn more, to make discoveries or be transported in some ways. Attacking a book blog is the 21st Century equivalent of 'book burning' done in the name ironically of a deceased teacher of children. I know things have got bad with the sisters but what is next?
Well, one thing that was next was a radio 'show' somewhere out of Invercargill, the host Vinnie Eastwood, a rather disturbed individual it seems, who laughed loudly about defamation because of a broad cover of use of the word 'allegedly' he apparently attends to his defamatory, freedom of speech show. I did tune in to listen to Parker and Purkiss. Obviously interested to hear them speak, and to listen to what they said.
Generally, they tried to withhold information from a willing, giggling, Eastwood, who has the type of character that interjects over the top, and goes off into weird descriptions of what the speakers were intending to say in his mind. One might suspect that he was trying to get Vic and Kent to make some further defamatory speech, but they didn't need any help with that. Purkiss is a pom, Kent I would say had a pleasant radio voice. Both men however, by their voices, are very slow unless that was a deliberate perhaps to garner sympathy. They did certainly ask for money,despite claiming that they'd got a 'lot in' already. Kent gave a totally incorrect description of what 'hearsay' is, and Eastwood came over the top to assist with an equally incorrect description. Their 'case' for Robin bore all the hallmarks of general one sided sister diatribe.
Mainstream media it was not, with a howling DJ who must have been on drugs and unfortunately, for him, defamed a number of people including a prominent nzer who has taken and won defamation cases before. By far the most important thing for me was that I got an clear idea of how Parker and Purkiss think and their relative intelligence. Notably they seemed not to understand that the host, in order to get away with defamation, ran his show as though it were a comedy, no doubt in an effort to say that everything said was satirical. Calling somebody a thief might be funny to the host, but I'm not so sure about the person he named might feel about that. Indeed, the overall picture, including Vic's obvious anxieties, reeked of desperation and lack of wit - generally showed the minds of 'book burners.'
1. The Message Board Seller, have a policy not to run Bain or Karam threads since an influx of posters there in 2010 led by Glenda O Brien and Christine Williams, the later making death threats as a way to promote her reasoned arguments.
2. The International Justice Conference, who had a influx of sisters protesting that David was speaking at the Conference in March. Yes, the same people who daily call for David to speak. Schizo?
3. Beatties Book Blog, who 'dared' to publish the foreword of 'Trial by Ambush.'
4.Trade Me, continues to host them of course, and allows them to post links.
This is all disturbing, most particularly to me the attack on a book blog. Most people appreciate books as wonderful things, some with a life of their own, a chance to learn more, to make discoveries or be transported in some ways. Attacking a book blog is the 21st Century equivalent of 'book burning' done in the name ironically of a deceased teacher of children. I know things have got bad with the sisters but what is next?
Well, one thing that was next was a radio 'show' somewhere out of Invercargill, the host Vinnie Eastwood, a rather disturbed individual it seems, who laughed loudly about defamation because of a broad cover of use of the word 'allegedly' he apparently attends to his defamatory, freedom of speech show. I did tune in to listen to Parker and Purkiss. Obviously interested to hear them speak, and to listen to what they said.
Generally, they tried to withhold information from a willing, giggling, Eastwood, who has the type of character that interjects over the top, and goes off into weird descriptions of what the speakers were intending to say in his mind. One might suspect that he was trying to get Vic and Kent to make some further defamatory speech, but they didn't need any help with that. Purkiss is a pom, Kent I would say had a pleasant radio voice. Both men however, by their voices, are very slow unless that was a deliberate perhaps to garner sympathy. They did certainly ask for money,despite claiming that they'd got a 'lot in' already. Kent gave a totally incorrect description of what 'hearsay' is, and Eastwood came over the top to assist with an equally incorrect description. Their 'case' for Robin bore all the hallmarks of general one sided sister diatribe.
Mainstream media it was not, with a howling DJ who must have been on drugs and unfortunately, for him, defamed a number of people including a prominent nzer who has taken and won defamation cases before. By far the most important thing for me was that I got an clear idea of how Parker and Purkiss think and their relative intelligence. Notably they seemed not to understand that the host, in order to get away with defamation, ran his show as though it were a comedy, no doubt in an effort to say that everything said was satirical. Calling somebody a thief might be funny to the host, but I'm not so sure about the person he named might feel about that. Indeed, the overall picture, including Vic's obvious anxieties, reeked of desperation and lack of wit - generally showed the minds of 'book burners.'
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The odd characteristics of the Robin Bain fan continue.
It's well known that Robin was a freemason. What is less well known is that many of his 'dumbed down' supporters have freemason connections in some way. These are people that continue to celebrate David's acquittal as some sort of vindication of Robin. An example of the 'dumbed down' supporters.
So whats fresh and new on pages 389-385 and that jmhb may of missed.?
Quotejeeves-50 (10 ) 2:16 pm, Sun 19 Feb #1260
goldnkiwi wrote:
So a whole book was written for 6 pages? Sheesh could just have been a brochure.
Or an addendum. The next book could be about 'All the things I wouldn't claim as fact again', that could go on to be a whole movie.
Quotegoldnkiwi (632 ) 2:29 pm, Sun 19 Feb #1261
Gosh, the internet must be down in some houses - so no Word is being received by the faithful for blind repetition.
Quotejmhb51 (1 ) 2:48 pm, Sun 19 Feb #1262
The person known as Jeeves is actually Ralph Taylor a hate-site member, but also unfortunately a mason. The second is also a hate-site member, Rachael Membery, a law graduate, the daughter of a mason whom she sued in his old age. Joanne Black jmhb (jiggle my huge butt) if unconnected to the masons obviously has some disorder that makes her post at times like a doomsayer prophet. They're in a tail-spin at the moment over the revealing book 'Trial By Ambush,' one claims to have read it, another (Jeeves) keeps asking for details of it and administering his 'evolved and all-seeing' opinion of something he hasn't read, dumb? stupid? why yes, but certainly something more.
Because these 3 have either shown connections to the masons, or are connected to the hate-sites, they keep giving mileage to the incest allegations against Robin Bain and the association with masons who by in large do fantastic community work and avoid controversy. They also attack his family when they feel it is required and have developed an adulation of Robin Bain that ignores the crimes he committed. I think of sharks when in a feeding frenzy and injured will devour their own intestines. These hate-siters devour everything, they have no reservation, opportunity to pause for reflection, they are mindless consumers of their own hate.
An alarming, at least to most people, is that one of the hate-site administrators recorded in writing what was 'permissible' for Robin to have instructed his daughter Laniet about of an intimate sexual nature - that's is hard to consider any father my think was normal. Tellingly, not one of the hate-siters challenged him on that and he remains an administrator. Interestingly, as some might know, I've often referred to Ralph Taylor as fiddler bro, or pedo-supporter Ralph.
Would anybody want them on their side, spreading hate, giving new meaning to stupidity, desperate to gloss over the less than wholesome aspects of Robin's life? Attempting to persuade people to their views with lies and attacking anyone that might hold a different view. There are odd characteristic with those that prey on children, a feeling of superiority and entitlement. These folks at the very least, feel entitlement to attack the dead Bain family, a jury, anybody that doesn't swallow their crap, in short people they see as inferior to them and over whom they have entitlement to lie and manipulate.
So whats fresh and new on pages 389-385 and that jmhb may of missed.?
Quotejeeves-50 (10 ) 2:16 pm, Sun 19 Feb #1260
goldnkiwi wrote:
So a whole book was written for 6 pages? Sheesh could just have been a brochure.
Or an addendum. The next book could be about 'All the things I wouldn't claim as fact again', that could go on to be a whole movie.
Quotegoldnkiwi (632 ) 2:29 pm, Sun 19 Feb #1261
Gosh, the internet must be down in some houses - so no Word is being received by the faithful for blind repetition.
Quotejmhb51 (1 ) 2:48 pm, Sun 19 Feb #1262
The person known as Jeeves is actually Ralph Taylor a hate-site member, but also unfortunately a mason. The second is also a hate-site member, Rachael Membery, a law graduate, the daughter of a mason whom she sued in his old age. Joanne Black jmhb (jiggle my huge butt) if unconnected to the masons obviously has some disorder that makes her post at times like a doomsayer prophet. They're in a tail-spin at the moment over the revealing book 'Trial By Ambush,' one claims to have read it, another (Jeeves) keeps asking for details of it and administering his 'evolved and all-seeing' opinion of something he hasn't read, dumb? stupid? why yes, but certainly something more.
Because these 3 have either shown connections to the masons, or are connected to the hate-sites, they keep giving mileage to the incest allegations against Robin Bain and the association with masons who by in large do fantastic community work and avoid controversy. They also attack his family when they feel it is required and have developed an adulation of Robin Bain that ignores the crimes he committed. I think of sharks when in a feeding frenzy and injured will devour their own intestines. These hate-siters devour everything, they have no reservation, opportunity to pause for reflection, they are mindless consumers of their own hate.
An alarming, at least to most people, is that one of the hate-site administrators recorded in writing what was 'permissible' for Robin to have instructed his daughter Laniet about of an intimate sexual nature - that's is hard to consider any father my think was normal. Tellingly, not one of the hate-siters challenged him on that and he remains an administrator. Interestingly, as some might know, I've often referred to Ralph Taylor as fiddler bro, or pedo-supporter Ralph.
Would anybody want them on their side, spreading hate, giving new meaning to stupidity, desperate to gloss over the less than wholesome aspects of Robin's life? Attempting to persuade people to their views with lies and attacking anyone that might hold a different view. There are odd characteristic with those that prey on children, a feeling of superiority and entitlement. These folks at the very least, feel entitlement to attack the dead Bain family, a jury, anybody that doesn't swallow their crap, in short people they see as inferior to them and over whom they have entitlement to lie and manipulate.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Look Van Beynan still can't get over himself!
The famous crime and investigative reporter is still beside himself with jealousy, but to his credit his not so thinly disguising his animosity toward Joe Karam. In fact one good say he is displaying being a 'good' sore loser, rather than just a sore loser in his attempt to continue to influence public opinion against an innocent man.
Yes, he has written an 'opinion' piece titled 'Bain defence still less than convincing' in part a review of Joe Karam's book 'Trial by Ambush'
He prefaces his position that he has written about the Bain case since 1997, what is immediately interesting from that is his apparent failure to recognise in himself, something which he criticises Karam for. That he, Van Beynan's, long association with the case also 'has a tremendous stake in convincing the public he has not wasted his time' - Van Beynan's assertion against Karam which Van Beynan obviously doesn't consider that many will think the same about hiim.
He goes onto say something which is completely untrue 'Trial by Ambush is simply the defence case for David Bain written by a man with a visceral interest in being right.' While I agree those comments even apply to Van Beynan's visceral interest in 'being right' about a case which for now has gone beyond the Courts to be considered for compensation, and therefore remains unpalatable to him as an investigative journalist who got things horribly wrong - the book is not 'simply' the defence case, the first quarter of the book deals with the prosecution case and reveals in detail the shortcomings and bias of the evidence against Bain - how that could be described as the 'defence case' is in the realms of fantasy.
Quite soon in Van Beynan's piece we are in the old ground of attacking the deceased common to those with a 'hang bainer' veiw of the more extreme type of the hate-sites. There is no suggestion that Van Beynan is associated directly with any of those sites, but there is comments which show there have been contact between the parties. Van Beynan is critical of the comments regarding David having 'a budding career as a clasical singer and surrounded by a loving an organised family' quite why Van Beynan needs to attack the family is unclear, what is clear however that people did give evidence of David's ability and career prospects something which Van Beynan ignores in order to decimate good opinion against the family. For example he doesn't reveal that both the daughters were working part time or that Arawa was doing very well at school.
We go from that to the ridiculous. He says how Margaret was going to be able to demolish her and build a mansion is a 'mystery.' He points out that Robin, in the normal event of a divorce it seems, was entitled to half the property, without Van Beynan apparently being able to absorb than even half of an estate valued in the 100s of thousands in the mid-nineties was enough to build a substantial home. He pays her another insult by saying 'The plans for the new house were being drawn up by Margaret who had no building or architecture qualifications.' He needs to get out more 100s of thousands of nzers plan their new homes in this way, ultimately in conjunction with an architect once the basic plan has been envisaged. Why he needs to ridicule Margaret in this way is a mystery. He victimises her again in a very offensive way. He goes onto say 'she was not employed, she clearly did little around the house, she often did not get out of bed and she made her shopping decisions with the use of a pendulum.' Well so what, are we meant to hate her for that, feel some sympathy for Robin for that reason, not for example wonder what happened to make the formerly happy and out going woman retire to such a place. Perhaps an investigative journalist would be mindful of the accusations against Robin by his daughters and contemplate if that had added to Margaret's condition. Poor form by Van Beynan, coloured by self-interest that time has proven him wrong and Karam right.
He goes further down this track with 'How many normal families, even disorganised ones, have Dad - whom Mum referred to in all seriousness as the Devil - sleeping in a cold, run down caravan, while she sleeps in the warmth of a waterbed inside.' Rather that take a position that things were unproven against Robin, Van Beynan should consider they were proven and at least in the mind of his wife and his daughters he could easily be seen 'as the Devil' who needed to be kept outside and away from the womenfolk.
Van Beynan goes onto cite unsubstantiated claims by some of David's former associates of a 'plan to rape' a jogger. Van Beynan, as an investigative reporter, one could assume, would know that unsubstantiated claims rejected as evidence don't play a part in a trial. Then we have the 'resounding' fact that Dempster the Pathologist called the angle of shot to the head as 'extremely unusual' but forgets to add he also said it was quite feasible, and in fact demonstrated using the skull cap Dempster made.
Van Beynan goes deeper into the old ground, making me wonder if he actually did read 'Trial by Ambush.' He transerves what is in fact become critical evidence in favour of David, the socks. He goes on about foot measurements, test in pig blood and so forth which were unhelpful to Robin anyway, and which showed he had been walking about the murder scene contemporaneously with the killings. What Van Beynan, doesn't touch on because of it's damage to his 'cause' is that none of the blood on David's socks had arrived there by being airborne, a fact alone that shows his innocence.
He labours on about 20 points of evidence damaging to David but which he doesn't apparently dare to transverse apart from the gurgling of Laniet - an indicator alone that simply shows that David did hear her gurgling as he reliably reported he had done, hardly the admission of a killer. The fingerprints of the rifle, which he omits to point out where in a 'carrying postion' and also fails to mention the Police's own expert revealed that fingerprints #82 'can last an awfully long time.' Van Beynan writes about the insignificant amount of blood on David's clothes and fails totally to reveal that #92 that blood on David's T shirt might have 'relatively old.' He says that the bruises on David's face are formidable but gives no detail that they were not observed by the St Johns officer who looked thoroughly over David early that morning, or David's fall which police observed. Perhaps to his credit Vay Beynan avoid the 'scratches' on David's chest, finally admitting one would hope that they were not observed by the police Doctor Pryde at the relevant time - a few hours after the deaths.
Then however, Van Beynan is full cry with absurdities claiming the 'bizzare if not ludicrous' behaviour of Robin putting his bloody clothes into the wash. This assertion quite frankly is pathetic, particular so from a person claiming to be long time expert of some sort on the Bain case. Karam nor David are not responsible for explaining the behaviour of a perpetrator of familicide. If Van Beynan read a little more he might recall the Ratima familicide where the father, also like the in the Bain case - the killer, put bibles on the chests of his young children after he had killed them. He also has never considered the case of Charlie Lawson - another case of familicide with striking similarities to the Bain case. Charlie Lawson brought his family knew clothes before he killed them the following day in a case that also involved incest.
Predictably for a man defensive of his own forensic capacity or indeed appreciation of the law, Van Beynan mentions the findings of the Victorian armourer who made the qualified statement that 'Robin Bain's death was most likely not suicide.' In pursuit of being totally one sided in his 'opinion' piece he fails to reveal that the armourer's 'evidence' was rejected by the NZ Courts for being corrupted by the actions of a nz police officer who implied he had a Court order to uplift the evidence, when in fact he did not. But even this goes further Van Beynan totally fails to acknowledge that Forensic Scientists (somewhat up the ladder in experience from armourers) testified as to the likely hood of Robin's suicide using a number of points, none less that one important one Van Beynan purposely ignores the consistency of the splatter from Robin's wound with suicide. Or indeed the even more damaging fact that Robin Bain had spatter found on him which was occluded as being from his own wound. Van Beynan can only ignore these telling points because they show his lack of objectivity on this case which he has either deliberately ignore or perhaps understands proves Robin's guilt.
Before finishing on critical evidence I should mention that like in his previous article, Van Beynan avoids like the plague offering even an acknowledgement of Robin's spatter being found in the rifle. Objective, I don't think so. Informed, certainly not. Van Beynan continues to 'bleat' about Karam not being able to spell correctly the Judges name. If Van Beynan thinks this is relevant to anything but his own jealousy he has failed to show so. Also fails to understand the printing and editing processes of books, poor chap. Toward the end of his miserable piece he reverts to type and attempts to condemn Arawa as a 'story teller' another effort to ignore that this case was familicide with a core of incest that many wish to ignore.
We could yet hear more about this article.
Yes, he has written an 'opinion' piece titled 'Bain defence still less than convincing' in part a review of Joe Karam's book 'Trial by Ambush'
He prefaces his position that he has written about the Bain case since 1997, what is immediately interesting from that is his apparent failure to recognise in himself, something which he criticises Karam for. That he, Van Beynan's, long association with the case also 'has a tremendous stake in convincing the public he has not wasted his time' - Van Beynan's assertion against Karam which Van Beynan obviously doesn't consider that many will think the same about hiim.
He goes onto say something which is completely untrue 'Trial by Ambush is simply the defence case for David Bain written by a man with a visceral interest in being right.' While I agree those comments even apply to Van Beynan's visceral interest in 'being right' about a case which for now has gone beyond the Courts to be considered for compensation, and therefore remains unpalatable to him as an investigative journalist who got things horribly wrong - the book is not 'simply' the defence case, the first quarter of the book deals with the prosecution case and reveals in detail the shortcomings and bias of the evidence against Bain - how that could be described as the 'defence case' is in the realms of fantasy.
Quite soon in Van Beynan's piece we are in the old ground of attacking the deceased common to those with a 'hang bainer' veiw of the more extreme type of the hate-sites. There is no suggestion that Van Beynan is associated directly with any of those sites, but there is comments which show there have been contact between the parties. Van Beynan is critical of the comments regarding David having 'a budding career as a clasical singer and surrounded by a loving an organised family' quite why Van Beynan needs to attack the family is unclear, what is clear however that people did give evidence of David's ability and career prospects something which Van Beynan ignores in order to decimate good opinion against the family. For example he doesn't reveal that both the daughters were working part time or that Arawa was doing very well at school.
We go from that to the ridiculous. He says how Margaret was going to be able to demolish her and build a mansion is a 'mystery.' He points out that Robin, in the normal event of a divorce it seems, was entitled to half the property, without Van Beynan apparently being able to absorb than even half of an estate valued in the 100s of thousands in the mid-nineties was enough to build a substantial home. He pays her another insult by saying 'The plans for the new house were being drawn up by Margaret who had no building or architecture qualifications.' He needs to get out more 100s of thousands of nzers plan their new homes in this way, ultimately in conjunction with an architect once the basic plan has been envisaged. Why he needs to ridicule Margaret in this way is a mystery. He victimises her again in a very offensive way. He goes onto say 'she was not employed, she clearly did little around the house, she often did not get out of bed and she made her shopping decisions with the use of a pendulum.' Well so what, are we meant to hate her for that, feel some sympathy for Robin for that reason, not for example wonder what happened to make the formerly happy and out going woman retire to such a place. Perhaps an investigative journalist would be mindful of the accusations against Robin by his daughters and contemplate if that had added to Margaret's condition. Poor form by Van Beynan, coloured by self-interest that time has proven him wrong and Karam right.
He goes further down this track with 'How many normal families, even disorganised ones, have Dad - whom Mum referred to in all seriousness as the Devil - sleeping in a cold, run down caravan, while she sleeps in the warmth of a waterbed inside.' Rather that take a position that things were unproven against Robin, Van Beynan should consider they were proven and at least in the mind of his wife and his daughters he could easily be seen 'as the Devil' who needed to be kept outside and away from the womenfolk.
Van Beynan goes onto cite unsubstantiated claims by some of David's former associates of a 'plan to rape' a jogger. Van Beynan, as an investigative reporter, one could assume, would know that unsubstantiated claims rejected as evidence don't play a part in a trial. Then we have the 'resounding' fact that Dempster the Pathologist called the angle of shot to the head as 'extremely unusual' but forgets to add he also said it was quite feasible, and in fact demonstrated using the skull cap Dempster made.
Van Beynan goes deeper into the old ground, making me wonder if he actually did read 'Trial by Ambush.' He transerves what is in fact become critical evidence in favour of David, the socks. He goes on about foot measurements, test in pig blood and so forth which were unhelpful to Robin anyway, and which showed he had been walking about the murder scene contemporaneously with the killings. What Van Beynan, doesn't touch on because of it's damage to his 'cause' is that none of the blood on David's socks had arrived there by being airborne, a fact alone that shows his innocence.
He labours on about 20 points of evidence damaging to David but which he doesn't apparently dare to transverse apart from the gurgling of Laniet - an indicator alone that simply shows that David did hear her gurgling as he reliably reported he had done, hardly the admission of a killer. The fingerprints of the rifle, which he omits to point out where in a 'carrying postion' and also fails to mention the Police's own expert revealed that fingerprints #82 'can last an awfully long time.' Van Beynan writes about the insignificant amount of blood on David's clothes and fails totally to reveal that #92 that blood on David's T shirt might have 'relatively old.' He says that the bruises on David's face are formidable but gives no detail that they were not observed by the St Johns officer who looked thoroughly over David early that morning, or David's fall which police observed. Perhaps to his credit Vay Beynan avoid the 'scratches' on David's chest, finally admitting one would hope that they were not observed by the police Doctor Pryde at the relevant time - a few hours after the deaths.
Then however, Van Beynan is full cry with absurdities claiming the 'bizzare if not ludicrous' behaviour of Robin putting his bloody clothes into the wash. This assertion quite frankly is pathetic, particular so from a person claiming to be long time expert of some sort on the Bain case. Karam nor David are not responsible for explaining the behaviour of a perpetrator of familicide. If Van Beynan read a little more he might recall the Ratima familicide where the father, also like the in the Bain case - the killer, put bibles on the chests of his young children after he had killed them. He also has never considered the case of Charlie Lawson - another case of familicide with striking similarities to the Bain case. Charlie Lawson brought his family knew clothes before he killed them the following day in a case that also involved incest.
Predictably for a man defensive of his own forensic capacity or indeed appreciation of the law, Van Beynan mentions the findings of the Victorian armourer who made the qualified statement that 'Robin Bain's death was most likely not suicide.' In pursuit of being totally one sided in his 'opinion' piece he fails to reveal that the armourer's 'evidence' was rejected by the NZ Courts for being corrupted by the actions of a nz police officer who implied he had a Court order to uplift the evidence, when in fact he did not. But even this goes further Van Beynan totally fails to acknowledge that Forensic Scientists (somewhat up the ladder in experience from armourers) testified as to the likely hood of Robin's suicide using a number of points, none less that one important one Van Beynan purposely ignores the consistency of the splatter from Robin's wound with suicide. Or indeed the even more damaging fact that Robin Bain had spatter found on him which was occluded as being from his own wound. Van Beynan can only ignore these telling points because they show his lack of objectivity on this case which he has either deliberately ignore or perhaps understands proves Robin's guilt.
Before finishing on critical evidence I should mention that like in his previous article, Van Beynan avoids like the plague offering even an acknowledgement of Robin's spatter being found in the rifle. Objective, I don't think so. Informed, certainly not. Van Beynan continues to 'bleat' about Karam not being able to spell correctly the Judges name. If Van Beynan thinks this is relevant to anything but his own jealousy he has failed to show so. Also fails to understand the printing and editing processes of books, poor chap. Toward the end of his miserable piece he reverts to type and attempts to condemn Arawa as a 'story teller' another effort to ignore that this case was familicide with a core of incest that many wish to ignore.
We could yet hear more about this article.
Friday, February 17, 2012
The brothers Bain, Michael and Robin.
The history of Michael Bain has become well known in recent years, due in part to Joe Karam's books. Also because of Michaels public statements, and by the general public knowledge that Michael was 1 of the 2 executors of Robin and Margaret's will, who had decided within days of the Bain deaths that David would be excluded funds from his inheritance that could have been available for David's defence. As it transpires in the long term, possibly helping David from ever being falsely convicted.
Michael's decision was made in rather odd circumstances that mirrored the decision of police to charge David before the investigation into the deaths had been completed, weeks before even blood samples from the house had been sent on for testing. Karam has made the point that as Michael was distant from the children and had essentially had no close contact with even Robin for over a dozen years. Showing to me the obvious, that Michael's affinity with David was paled by the fact that he hardly knew him, and in terms of being a young adult by the time of the killings didn't know him at all as a young man. Generally speaking a person's relationship with his siblings are the most enduring by time, longer than with parents or children by reason of the proximity of age grouping of siblings compared to parents or children.
We've never heard from Michael, as is his entitlement, the reason for his relative haste in abandoning his nephew before any charges were ever proven against him, or even now when no charges or blame is proven against him and will never be. It's fairly well known that Michael Bain has no apparent intention to ensure David's inheritance is returned to him in compliance with the late Robin and Margeret's wishes, despite the fact he has now, for a number of years, stood innocent of any crime what so ever. We have heard of Michael's animosity toward David for not 'defending' the family name or that of Robin. That position can only be construed now, when David innocence is all present, that animosity is because David didn't take the blame for Robin. Interesting hardly describes such logic, but it does seem apparent, very apparent and probably not something that would withstand the test of law.
As some of the 'heat' comes out of the controversy of the false imprisonment of David Bain, with attention now turned toward compensation for the lost years of his life, the probability that indeed Robin committed familicide will never be diminished. The extent to which Robin's life was in disorder and the pressure over the accusations of his daughters against him ultimately show that he was a man driven and unable to resolve things within his family without killing them. He chose to destroy them before destroying himself, selfish yes, understandable no - not to the sane.
So the two brothers Michael and Robin. By comparison. Robin, no doubt unwell and lost in the pressure, sacrificed his wife and 3 of his children. In the same week, his somewhat distant brother, when considering the large sum of money under his and anothers control as executors, sacrificed the opportunity for David to have a well financed defence, rather than deferring that decision or compromising on it in someway he and the other executor 'shut the door' on David's guilt before it was ever proved, effectively making a judgement that might well have contributed to David spending the next dozen years in prison for a crime he didn't committ.
Because David is innocent as time has proven, the decision not to help him was in the final analysis a 'judgement' that perhaps helped send him to a 'dry' death, infamy to some extent, and what most would see as a unendurable torture that followed the annihilation of his family. Judgement by 2 brothers in what week, Robin might have considered he made some 'amends' for his decision. Whilst on the other hand all these years later Michael seems not to recognise that his nephew has proven to be innocent and is condemned for it. Brothers eh.
Footnote for the bewildered:
In NZ we don't have a law that somebody is guilty despite being found not guilty. We also don't have laws for nzers to treat others in an unsatisfactory or unlawful way or deprive them of their rights because of what people might feel about them or 'feel' they might have done. Nor do we have a tenet that allows hate-sites, and hate-siters to malign Margaret Bain and her children at length at the same time chortling for laws to be changed to hide the guilt of Robin Bain - well not as far I know.
Michael's decision was made in rather odd circumstances that mirrored the decision of police to charge David before the investigation into the deaths had been completed, weeks before even blood samples from the house had been sent on for testing. Karam has made the point that as Michael was distant from the children and had essentially had no close contact with even Robin for over a dozen years. Showing to me the obvious, that Michael's affinity with David was paled by the fact that he hardly knew him, and in terms of being a young adult by the time of the killings didn't know him at all as a young man. Generally speaking a person's relationship with his siblings are the most enduring by time, longer than with parents or children by reason of the proximity of age grouping of siblings compared to parents or children.
We've never heard from Michael, as is his entitlement, the reason for his relative haste in abandoning his nephew before any charges were ever proven against him, or even now when no charges or blame is proven against him and will never be. It's fairly well known that Michael Bain has no apparent intention to ensure David's inheritance is returned to him in compliance with the late Robin and Margeret's wishes, despite the fact he has now, for a number of years, stood innocent of any crime what so ever. We have heard of Michael's animosity toward David for not 'defending' the family name or that of Robin. That position can only be construed now, when David innocence is all present, that animosity is because David didn't take the blame for Robin. Interesting hardly describes such logic, but it does seem apparent, very apparent and probably not something that would withstand the test of law.
As some of the 'heat' comes out of the controversy of the false imprisonment of David Bain, with attention now turned toward compensation for the lost years of his life, the probability that indeed Robin committed familicide will never be diminished. The extent to which Robin's life was in disorder and the pressure over the accusations of his daughters against him ultimately show that he was a man driven and unable to resolve things within his family without killing them. He chose to destroy them before destroying himself, selfish yes, understandable no - not to the sane.
So the two brothers Michael and Robin. By comparison. Robin, no doubt unwell and lost in the pressure, sacrificed his wife and 3 of his children. In the same week, his somewhat distant brother, when considering the large sum of money under his and anothers control as executors, sacrificed the opportunity for David to have a well financed defence, rather than deferring that decision or compromising on it in someway he and the other executor 'shut the door' on David's guilt before it was ever proved, effectively making a judgement that might well have contributed to David spending the next dozen years in prison for a crime he didn't committ.
Because David is innocent as time has proven, the decision not to help him was in the final analysis a 'judgement' that perhaps helped send him to a 'dry' death, infamy to some extent, and what most would see as a unendurable torture that followed the annihilation of his family. Judgement by 2 brothers in what week, Robin might have considered he made some 'amends' for his decision. Whilst on the other hand all these years later Michael seems not to recognise that his nephew has proven to be innocent and is condemned for it. Brothers eh.
Footnote for the bewildered:
In NZ we don't have a law that somebody is guilty despite being found not guilty. We also don't have laws for nzers to treat others in an unsatisfactory or unlawful way or deprive them of their rights because of what people might feel about them or 'feel' they might have done. Nor do we have a tenet that allows hate-sites, and hate-siters to malign Margaret Bain and her children at length at the same time chortling for laws to be changed to hide the guilt of Robin Bain - well not as far I know.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
All the hate-siters ever had was lies and that is all they have left.
This from a hate-siter Cushla Amos that signed the 'petition' 3 times.
All Cushla has is lies, a mantra that could only be digested by an idiot..here it goes.
the palm print in blood on the washing machine
the scratches on Davids torso
no bruising consistent with fighting on Robin
the bloody jumper being in the washing that David put on....clang
Quotesoma2 (198 ) 1:07 am, Thu 16 Feb #765
So we take our answers from the evidence in order 1 through 4
The bloody handprint:
“Lodge found four items in another cabinet which appeared to have blood on them: a pink cloth; folded up shower curtain; a face mask and swimming togs….
These were found on a shelf in the cupboard behind the cupboard door. There was no blood found on the cupboard. When they were tested by the police, they tested negative for blood. They were all folded up in a cupboard along with other towels and so-on. That old shower curtain was the supposedly bloodied shower curtain, not the one being used in the shower itself. There was no other blood found in the bathroom except blood on a towel which was found to be Robin’s blood and could have got there at any time.
So in fact no bloody handprint. Cushla Amos is just taking up the lies of Parker and repeating them, as marzuka also did but added in computer generated scenes and doctored photos. However, the evidence is clear only Robin's blood in the laundry.
The scratches on David's torso:
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
So we have details of the strip search the hate-siters claimed never happened, and no evidence whatsoever from the Detective Sergeant, or the Police Doctor of scratches on David's torso. Just more lies folks. He may have marks as attributed to a lowly prison officer days after the Doctors examination. But those 'marks' were not seen by any other prison officer and the prison officer who claimed to have seen them took 15 years to remember, but he didn't remember the names of any of the officers present. Truth, I doubt it. But even if you took his word, it means at the most David had marks days after the strip search and thorough examination by Dr Pryde. Just more filthy lies from Cushla Amos
No bruising consistent with a fight on Robin.
Simply look at the photos of Robin's blood stained hands below in a earlier post, see the dulled abrasions, cuts and swelling and read the comments by a scientist who believed Robin's right hand might have been broken.
The bloody jumper found in the washing that David put on
On first impression this might have had some significance. But the jersey of course didn't fit David, it was a jersey that Robin wore. So we return to Lodge's evidence above. The only blood found in the laundry Robins - found on a towel. Then we look at the photos of his hands and see blood wash on his palms. No doubt that David turned on the machine as he always did after returning from the paper round. No doubt either that it had inside the machine a jersey that the killer wore, linked both to the only blood found in the laundry, that of the killer - Robin, linked to the blood wash on his hands discovered on his hands and with held from the jury until the 2nd trial.
So Cushla Amos is just another filthy hate-siter spreading lies as though they were the truth. You'll note she uses no evidence because there is none to back up her lies. All her 'evidence' comes from a 'hate-site' closed to the public. Why is Parker's site closed, why does it have 'inner sanctums' that only approved kiddy fiddlers, or fiddler supporters can go - only one answer for that, because that is where they hide the real truth of who they are and what there objectives are.
I might post the 3 times Cushla Amos signed that 'petition' just so folks know what a scumbag she is.
Maybe I might print the real name of the photo doctorer, marzuka, the physics graduate, just to keep them all happy.
All Cushla has is lies, a mantra that could only be digested by an idiot..here it goes.
the palm print in blood on the washing machine
the scratches on Davids torso
no bruising consistent with fighting on Robin
the bloody jumper being in the washing that David put on....clang
Quotesoma2 (198 ) 1:07 am, Thu 16 Feb #765
So we take our answers from the evidence in order 1 through 4
The bloody handprint:
“Lodge found four items in another cabinet which appeared to have blood on them: a pink cloth; folded up shower curtain; a face mask and swimming togs….
These were found on a shelf in the cupboard behind the cupboard door. There was no blood found on the cupboard. When they were tested by the police, they tested negative for blood. They were all folded up in a cupboard along with other towels and so-on. That old shower curtain was the supposedly bloodied shower curtain, not the one being used in the shower itself. There was no other blood found in the bathroom except blood on a towel which was found to be Robin’s blood and could have got there at any time.
So in fact no bloody handprint. Cushla Amos is just taking up the lies of Parker and repeating them, as marzuka also did but added in computer generated scenes and doctored photos. However, the evidence is clear only Robin's blood in the laundry.
The scratches on David's torso:
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
So we have details of the strip search the hate-siters claimed never happened, and no evidence whatsoever from the Detective Sergeant, or the Police Doctor of scratches on David's torso. Just more lies folks. He may have marks as attributed to a lowly prison officer days after the Doctors examination. But those 'marks' were not seen by any other prison officer and the prison officer who claimed to have seen them took 15 years to remember, but he didn't remember the names of any of the officers present. Truth, I doubt it. But even if you took his word, it means at the most David had marks days after the strip search and thorough examination by Dr Pryde. Just more filthy lies from Cushla Amos
No bruising consistent with a fight on Robin.
Simply look at the photos of Robin's blood stained hands below in a earlier post, see the dulled abrasions, cuts and swelling and read the comments by a scientist who believed Robin's right hand might have been broken.
The bloody jumper found in the washing that David put on
On first impression this might have had some significance. But the jersey of course didn't fit David, it was a jersey that Robin wore. So we return to Lodge's evidence above. The only blood found in the laundry Robins - found on a towel. Then we look at the photos of his hands and see blood wash on his palms. No doubt that David turned on the machine as he always did after returning from the paper round. No doubt either that it had inside the machine a jersey that the killer wore, linked both to the only blood found in the laundry, that of the killer - Robin, linked to the blood wash on his hands discovered on his hands and with held from the jury until the 2nd trial.
So Cushla Amos is just another filthy hate-siter spreading lies as though they were the truth. You'll note she uses no evidence because there is none to back up her lies. All her 'evidence' comes from a 'hate-site' closed to the public. Why is Parker's site closed, why does it have 'inner sanctums' that only approved kiddy fiddlers, or fiddler supporters can go - only one answer for that, because that is where they hide the real truth of who they are and what there objectives are.
I might post the 3 times Cushla Amos signed that 'petition' just so folks know what a scumbag she is.
Maybe I might print the real name of the photo doctorer, marzuka, the physics graduate, just to keep them all happy.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
How was it that the police and the Crown looked past Robin's busted up hands?
Imagine the first police coming on the Bain household the morning of the murders. To their, credit unlike their modern day counterparts, they went straight into the house. No doubt they knew the danger, a house full of victims. Their adrenalin would have been racked off the scale knowing that the gunman might still be there. David had made little sense on the phone and was in shock. The thing he most wanted was the police there, and as soon as possible, the ordinary reaction for a young man in an extraordinary situation.
The 'find' for the police must have been truely shocking, but they kept to their work, isolating and guarding David as they searched the house. Finding the rifle beside the dead body of Robin must have been some relief but there was no certainty about the scene until they had in total control. What they saw in the lounge completed the inquiry on any other day, the dead father, the wound to his head and the rifle nearby. As other investigators arrived and took over the scene, the pathologist was kept outside even though he had arrived promptly as was his job. The public would later learn that police wanted to contain the scene before letting him in, a man with a long history of meticulously gathering forensic proof, in essence as it prevails with more experience that the investigating officers and measurably more common sense.
Fast forward to the 2009 retrial and the following....Well, the police took their own photos at the morgue and used those. They didn’t bother to photograph the blood smears and so-on. But the pathologists take their own photographs too, and the thumb was one of the lab photos. In the retrial, when Dempster produced it, he said “These are prints that I discovered recently that I thought were part of the police record, I had them along with a large number of other photographs that had been copied from the police record into colour transparencies, and it was only very recently that I realised that these were – this was a photograph that had been taken by our mortuary technician using our mortuary camera. I can't understand why we didn’t have a police –“ and at that he got rapidly cut off by the crown counsel!
We learn f Dempster only becoming aware that his photos and that of his staff had not been produced at the first trial. Photos, which to anybody of any wit, were possibly the strongest evidence that the investigation had gone right off track. The photos showed what any investigator would be looking for on both the suspects that morning - busted up or bloody hands. The chances of the killer having got through his killing spree, that included a quite violent struggle, without damage to his hands was slim going on improbable. But we need to go further with the hands because Robin's hands were not only bruised and showing cuts but they had blood wash 'inside' the hands on the palms. It's totally inconceivable to me that even on the evidence of Robin's hands alone that David was ever charged. Remember David was stripped searched and subjected to invasive procedures on the morning of the murders by the police doctor Pryde. Imagining even for a moment that if David had been the killer he'd somehow escaped injury to his hands, what explanation could there be for the dead father, found lying beside the rifle, with not only damage to his hands but blood on his palms?
There can be no explanation, absolutely none. Then trace that blood (which wasn't spatter, but rather 'wash' or wipe,' to the laundry and we find Robin's blood on the towel there. So were the particular police responsible for 'ignoring' this evidence just dumb? Apparently not, they in fact were very calculating. They ensured that the photos showing the blood wash on Robin's hands taken by the pathologists staff were not entered into evidence, they ensured that the pathologists didn't know about that, replacing his photos with their own that showed no blood.
No person in their right mind can walk away from the fact that the police fully understood the importance of Robin's bloody hands because they hid the fact. It remained hidden for more than a dozen years. Not one of those homicide squad detectives, who would have learnt in early in their careers the importance of observing a suspected offenders hands, set himself apart from the corruption of the hiding of the truth about Robin's hands while his son languished in prison. Not one of them. It became the task of Dr Dempster when reviewing his file for the prospect of a re-trial that discovered the hidden evidence. He raised it, as we see above, during the retrail. Having wrote earlier to Crown Law telling them that he couldn't exclude the possibility that David had heard his sister gurgle because of his experience in a more recent case.
I think, reading between the lines, that Dempster was never resolved to the fact of David's guilt. I suspect for a number of reasons, none less than the condition of Robin's hands. While Dempster was kept outside on the morning of the killings, a host of inexperienced staff and observers trudged through the house, some moving exhibits for photographing in different positions. We are asked to believe these actions were to ensure the integrity of the scene from the entry of the most experienced crime scene investigator there that day, Dr Dempster.
It's wholly rotten folks.
The 'find' for the police must have been truely shocking, but they kept to their work, isolating and guarding David as they searched the house. Finding the rifle beside the dead body of Robin must have been some relief but there was no certainty about the scene until they had in total control. What they saw in the lounge completed the inquiry on any other day, the dead father, the wound to his head and the rifle nearby. As other investigators arrived and took over the scene, the pathologist was kept outside even though he had arrived promptly as was his job. The public would later learn that police wanted to contain the scene before letting him in, a man with a long history of meticulously gathering forensic proof, in essence as it prevails with more experience that the investigating officers and measurably more common sense.
Fast forward to the 2009 retrial and the following....Well, the police took their own photos at the morgue and used those. They didn’t bother to photograph the blood smears and so-on. But the pathologists take their own photographs too, and the thumb was one of the lab photos. In the retrial, when Dempster produced it, he said “These are prints that I discovered recently that I thought were part of the police record, I had them along with a large number of other photographs that had been copied from the police record into colour transparencies, and it was only very recently that I realised that these were – this was a photograph that had been taken by our mortuary technician using our mortuary camera. I can't understand why we didn’t have a police –“ and at that he got rapidly cut off by the crown counsel!
We learn f Dempster only becoming aware that his photos and that of his staff had not been produced at the first trial. Photos, which to anybody of any wit, were possibly the strongest evidence that the investigation had gone right off track. The photos showed what any investigator would be looking for on both the suspects that morning - busted up or bloody hands. The chances of the killer having got through his killing spree, that included a quite violent struggle, without damage to his hands was slim going on improbable. But we need to go further with the hands because Robin's hands were not only bruised and showing cuts but they had blood wash 'inside' the hands on the palms. It's totally inconceivable to me that even on the evidence of Robin's hands alone that David was ever charged. Remember David was stripped searched and subjected to invasive procedures on the morning of the murders by the police doctor Pryde. Imagining even for a moment that if David had been the killer he'd somehow escaped injury to his hands, what explanation could there be for the dead father, found lying beside the rifle, with not only damage to his hands but blood on his palms?
There can be no explanation, absolutely none. Then trace that blood (which wasn't spatter, but rather 'wash' or wipe,' to the laundry and we find Robin's blood on the towel there. So were the particular police responsible for 'ignoring' this evidence just dumb? Apparently not, they in fact were very calculating. They ensured that the photos showing the blood wash on Robin's hands taken by the pathologists staff were not entered into evidence, they ensured that the pathologists didn't know about that, replacing his photos with their own that showed no blood.
No person in their right mind can walk away from the fact that the police fully understood the importance of Robin's bloody hands because they hid the fact. It remained hidden for more than a dozen years. Not one of those homicide squad detectives, who would have learnt in early in their careers the importance of observing a suspected offenders hands, set himself apart from the corruption of the hiding of the truth about Robin's hands while his son languished in prison. Not one of them. It became the task of Dr Dempster when reviewing his file for the prospect of a re-trial that discovered the hidden evidence. He raised it, as we see above, during the retrail. Having wrote earlier to Crown Law telling them that he couldn't exclude the possibility that David had heard his sister gurgle because of his experience in a more recent case.
I think, reading between the lines, that Dempster was never resolved to the fact of David's guilt. I suspect for a number of reasons, none less than the condition of Robin's hands. While Dempster was kept outside on the morning of the killings, a host of inexperienced staff and observers trudged through the house, some moving exhibits for photographing in different positions. We are asked to believe these actions were to ensure the integrity of the scene from the entry of the most experienced crime scene investigator there that day, Dr Dempster.
It's wholly rotten folks.
The relatively small world of scientists and physic graduates in NZ.
I recently blogged about marzuka and his defamatory photos. Well we now know who marzuka is, as we know who many of the remaining hate-siters are. They've enjoyed persecuting David Bain, never thinking that they would be called to task. Apart from the charges against Parker and Purkiss the rest may have thought things might stop there.
The following in italics is from somebody who has brought another dimension to the bruises on Robin Bain's hands. You know the bruises and cuts - the ones that 'don't' exist according to the hate-siters. The extensive bruising through Robin's fingers is most likely the result of the impact being 'dulled' or 'swamped' over a greater surface because of the gloves Robin wore.
Plenty more to come on Robin's hands, something which goes right to the core of the investigation and the 'cover up.' That'll be for another time. I've deleted marzuka's real name from below, if he or any of his friends read here I'd suggest he withdraw and destroy all his defamatory material from where ever it may be stored. Whether somebody pursues marzuka into the Courts is not my decision, but unlike the idiot Parker, one would assume a physics graduate understand that in the first instance on being 'discovered' is to remove all defamatory material.
The correspondent below touches on the fact Robin might have had a broken right hand from the fight with his youngest son. I must try and find out if Robin's hands were ever x rayed - if they weren't it makes the quality of the 'investigation' all the more sinister. Interspersed below are my comments by return to the letter writer.
Footnote; I've just had a very hostile email from one of the sisters, saying they believe I 'too scared' to name marzuka. Very funny. It reminds me that marzuka was actually outed sometime back by 2 of the more twisted hate-siters. It also reminds me that a hate-site administrator published some 'drawings' he commissioned from a certain couple in Dunedin which also sought to defame David and present him as the killer instead of his father. Interesting how things begin to stack up against the sisters now, more and more each day.
Thought I’d just touch base about a couple of your latest blogs.
In those hand photos I’m quite convinced that I can see extensive bruise like dis-coloration on his index & middle fingers- in front of the knuckles & also on the back of his hand, behind those same knuckles, extending down towards his wrist.The other photo that you have posted on your blog, taken from Joes latest book ,shows the bruising better.All this is in addition to the skin lesion with its 2cm circular bruise behind the knuckles of his ring & little fingers.
I actually believe Robin busted his fist during his struggle with Stephen.The bruises are similar to what I have seen in fights-& on myself sometimes after a session in the dojo.The gloves would have protected against having more cuts than he already had.
These could explain why Robin favoured his left side for shooting himself & was dis-inclined to hand write a suicide note- his right hand was too damn sore.
Just wondering what your opinion is on this? I ran it past Rob as well, but unfortunately it is probably too late to ask Dempster to have another look at it.
Also Marzurka- he’s a fellow called ---------------- a relatively recent graduate in physics.I consider his doctored photos & videos highly defamatory.
Pleased to hear from you.
Two answers. Handling the rifle with the stronger (right) hand is consistent with the way a right handed person carries and shoots a rifle. Robin bore the weight and control of the rifle with his right hand I think is shown, operated the trigger with his left not having the advantage of a normal shot where the weight of the rifle is pushed into the right shoulder and steadied by the left.
I think your observation about the gloves is why the damage to Robin's hands was 'muted.' Bloody obvious but I didn't see that before. He might have gone 'left' handed because of that, but I know myself from having had broken hands or fingers, unless it were a wrist fracture, the pain or disability is lost in the fight.
I should just add – the bruising on his fingers appears to cover the whole joint from the knuckles on the fist, to the 1st joints on the fingers.
Yes, that must be how the impact flattens out because of the gloves.
The following in italics is from somebody who has brought another dimension to the bruises on Robin Bain's hands. You know the bruises and cuts - the ones that 'don't' exist according to the hate-siters. The extensive bruising through Robin's fingers is most likely the result of the impact being 'dulled' or 'swamped' over a greater surface because of the gloves Robin wore.
Plenty more to come on Robin's hands, something which goes right to the core of the investigation and the 'cover up.' That'll be for another time. I've deleted marzuka's real name from below, if he or any of his friends read here I'd suggest he withdraw and destroy all his defamatory material from where ever it may be stored. Whether somebody pursues marzuka into the Courts is not my decision, but unlike the idiot Parker, one would assume a physics graduate understand that in the first instance on being 'discovered' is to remove all defamatory material.
The correspondent below touches on the fact Robin might have had a broken right hand from the fight with his youngest son. I must try and find out if Robin's hands were ever x rayed - if they weren't it makes the quality of the 'investigation' all the more sinister. Interspersed below are my comments by return to the letter writer.
Footnote; I've just had a very hostile email from one of the sisters, saying they believe I 'too scared' to name marzuka. Very funny. It reminds me that marzuka was actually outed sometime back by 2 of the more twisted hate-siters. It also reminds me that a hate-site administrator published some 'drawings' he commissioned from a certain couple in Dunedin which also sought to defame David and present him as the killer instead of his father. Interesting how things begin to stack up against the sisters now, more and more each day.
Thought I’d just touch base about a couple of your latest blogs.
In those hand photos I’m quite convinced that I can see extensive bruise like dis-coloration on his index & middle fingers- in front of the knuckles & also on the back of his hand, behind those same knuckles, extending down towards his wrist.The other photo that you have posted on your blog, taken from Joes latest book ,shows the bruising better.All this is in addition to the skin lesion with its 2cm circular bruise behind the knuckles of his ring & little fingers.
I actually believe Robin busted his fist during his struggle with Stephen.The bruises are similar to what I have seen in fights-& on myself sometimes after a session in the dojo.The gloves would have protected against having more cuts than he already had.
These could explain why Robin favoured his left side for shooting himself & was dis-inclined to hand write a suicide note- his right hand was too damn sore.
Just wondering what your opinion is on this? I ran it past Rob as well, but unfortunately it is probably too late to ask Dempster to have another look at it.
Also Marzurka- he’s a fellow called ---------------- a relatively recent graduate in physics.I consider his doctored photos & videos highly defamatory.
Pleased to hear from you.
Two answers. Handling the rifle with the stronger (right) hand is consistent with the way a right handed person carries and shoots a rifle. Robin bore the weight and control of the rifle with his right hand I think is shown, operated the trigger with his left not having the advantage of a normal shot where the weight of the rifle is pushed into the right shoulder and steadied by the left.
I think your observation about the gloves is why the damage to Robin's hands was 'muted.' Bloody obvious but I didn't see that before. He might have gone 'left' handed because of that, but I know myself from having had broken hands or fingers, unless it were a wrist fracture, the pain or disability is lost in the fight.
I should just add – the bruising on his fingers appears to cover the whole joint from the knuckles on the fist, to the 1st joints on the fingers.
Yes, that must be how the impact flattens out because of the gloves.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
What fiddler Ralph Taylor doesn't want people to know.
Ralph Taylor goes on at length about fingerprints on the rifle, claims that Robin's were not there even though there is no proof of that. He claims that Robin hands were not bloody and bruised. We've seen the blood below and here are some of the bruises and cuts. So remember bruises, cuts, and only Robin's blood found on the towel in the laundry, only his blood found in the rifle barrel, only he with blood spatter going the wrong way from his wound, proving that it didn't come from there - but from somebody else killed that morning. Those blood 'wash' marks fit in with the blood on that towel. Why is Ralph Taylor so desperate to ignore the real evidence and influence people with lies, I think it can be only one reason - Ralph Taylor, like Robin Bain - has skeletons in his closet and Taylor now shows the same type of seething anger at being caught out, just like his sick mate that thought it was 'okay' for a father to teach a daughter to put her fingers inside herself - remember that person folks - a counterspin administrator. A devo right at the top. These people are sick deviates. Ralph Taylor is losing the plot so much now he seems totally comparable with his idol when he decided to 'tidy up' his sick life. Buy the book Taylor, let your pervert mates read it and weep.
Monday, February 13, 2012
How the hate-siters work.
See below for Kent Parker (newzeal - another attempt at trying to identify himself as a nzer) introducing a lie about blood. Later, along comes marzuka (call him bazooka - because something blew his brain apart) asking about blood found on a mask in the laundry. So Parker starts the lies and his fellows add to it, in fact in some detail, because bazooka produces a series of computer generated figures of what is proposed to be David Bain wearing a mask and holding a rifle.
Then along comes some idiot like phae from Coromandel, sees the presentation and thinks it's true, when in fact is starts with a lie and gains a 'computer generated' credibility. Made up evidence folks, made up evidence, computer altered photos, and down right lies is all the pedo supporters have.
Toward the end of the following you will find exactly what was found in the laundry, and you will also note that it was Robin's blood found on a towel in the laundry, which later here will give rise to a description of other material withheld by the police that the Privy Council never heard about. If they had I doubt they would have ordered a retrial. Not forgetting that they, the Privy Council, always qualified their decision as being up to the nz authorities to decide whether to try David again or not - a decision that has cost the tax payers millions and which will cost millions more.
upsideout wrote:
Yes there were fingerprints belonging to / identifiable to, Robin Bain at the crime scene.
Where? If there were, were they on any item that was crucial to the crime? David's fingerprints were on the rifle that was the murder weapon and on the washing machine in blood.
Quotenewzeal2 (6 ) 9:33 am, Sun 12 Feb #157
Hi Cybernana,
Does the new book have any pictures of the facemask with blood on it found in the laundry as I'd like to see how well it matches some curious impressions on david's brusied face?
Cheers.
Quotemarzuka (15) 5:49 pm, Sun 12 Feb #230
“Lodge found four items in another cabinet which appeared to have blood on them: a pink cloth; folded up shower curtain; a face mask and swimming togs….
These were found on a shelf in the cupboard behind the cupboard door. There was no blood found on the cupboard. When they were tested by the police, they tested negative for blood. They were all folded up in a cupboard along with other towels and so-on. That old shower curtain was the supposedly bloodied shower curtain, not the one being used in the shower itself. There was no other blood found in the bathroom except blood on a towel which was found to be Robin’s blood and could have got there at any time.
There is no sign of Robin or David having had a shower: the police did not claim that; that has come from the counterspinners.
So we get to Robin's hands. Ralph Taylor in particular identifies with Robin Bain, and has particular sensitivities about the allegation that Robin was a pedo. Ralp Taylor (Jeeves on TM) denied that David was strip searched and said there was no evidence of Robin's blood being found inside the rifle barrel. Wrong on both counts of course. Taylor also like to joke about the magazine being found up right on the floor near Robin's hand, completely overlooking that the magazine was moved many times within the examination scene, Taylor ignores facts and I think he's a pervert, just like his idol Robin Bain.
Taylor has demanded proof of the blood on the inside of Robin's hands, well the photo is below. But first of all is the revelation that the police unknown to the pathologists withheld this photo . Instead the police used their own photos that didn't show the blood. Reason being, because there was a towel in the laundry with Robin's blood on it and the obvious, that Robin didn't get blood smears inside his hands after he killed himself, just like he didn't get blood spray occluded as being from his own wound when he died. In short - the forensic proof daddy Bain committed familicide.
First, the revelations of the blood smears.
Well, the police took their own photos at the morgue and used those. They didn’t bother to photograph the blood smears and so-on. But the pathologists take their own photographs too, and the thumb was one of the lab photos. In the retrial, when Dempster produced it, he said “These are prints that I discovered recently that I thought were part of the police record, I had them along with a large number of other photographs that had been copied from the police record into colour transparencies, and it was only very recently that I realised that these were – this was a photograph that had been taken by our mortuary technician using our mortuary camera. I can't understand why we didn’t have a police –“ and at that he got rapidly cut off by the crown counsel!
Why are they afraid of the truth?
Why do they want to cover up the 'activities' of Robin Bain?
An early commentator on the book has said 'I now know David didn't do it, I now know he couldn't have done it.'
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Doctored photos.
Large reddish rectangular contusion like mark seems quite clear to me and spectrally doesn't match other shadows on david's face:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-SPEw_8-0Uek/TzdPGPFE2kI/A
AAAAAAABbg/q95XxoSb7R0/s800/bain%252520bruises3b.jpg
Quotemarzuka (15) 9:27 pm, Sun 12 Feb #254
More about this tomorrow folks. The photo this individual has placed on Trade Me is doctored. This photo does not correspond with #32 the photo taken by Doctor Pryde which shows no such marks. Why would this 'person' marzuka be posting doctored photos on Trade Me? The same reason as Parker lied about blood and fingerprints in the laundry?
And another question, why would the Crown not enter into the records the photos from the pathologist that showed blood smears on the hands of the dead father, but rather exhibit police 'photos' that didn't?
That's why Karam has called the book 'Trial by Ambush,' but those photos came out in the end, thanks to Dempster, and the jury saw them.
So who is marzuka?
We need to know.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-SPEw_8-0Uek/TzdPGPFE2kI/A
AAAAAAABbg/q95XxoSb7R0/s800/bain%252520bruises3b.jpg
Quotemarzuka (15) 9:27 pm, Sun 12 Feb #254
More about this tomorrow folks. The photo this individual has placed on Trade Me is doctored. This photo does not correspond with #32 the photo taken by Doctor Pryde which shows no such marks. Why would this 'person' marzuka be posting doctored photos on Trade Me? The same reason as Parker lied about blood and fingerprints in the laundry?
And another question, why would the Crown not enter into the records the photos from the pathologist that showed blood smears on the hands of the dead father, but rather exhibit police 'photos' that didn't?
That's why Karam has called the book 'Trial by Ambush,' but those photos came out in the end, thanks to Dempster, and the jury saw them.
So who is marzuka?
We need to know.
When I said Kent Parker and his mates were fiddlers - this is part of the reason why.
Dr Dempster – These facts from his own evidence at retrial - The Crowns primary expert destroyed any suggestion that Robin’s death was not suicide (list below taken from pages 271-273 Trial By Ambush – Joe Karam.
Plank A
• That Laniet Bain could have been making gurgling noises when David arrived home from his paper round if Robin had shot her three times in the head 15 or more minutes before David got ome, and that the Crown had overstated matters in the first trial as far as his evidence was concerned on this issue.
• In a further matter that will be discussed in relation to the death of Laniet and the gurgling evidence, Dempster agreed that he did not examine the bullet fragments from Laniet’s head or the bullet fragments found external to her body. He accepted that if these bullet fragments contained white fibres, it meant that the bullet must have been fired through an intermediate target of white fabric and that when that happens this can cause unusual entry wounds like the one in the top of her head.
• That if Stephen Bain, lying almost naked on the floor in the freezing house, had been killed by David about 4 a.m. as the Crown postulated, his body would have got cold much quicker than Margaret, Arawa and Laniet.
Plank B
• Dempster was aware of reports that showed that right-handed people sometimes shot themselves in the left temple when committing suicide. One report indicated that this occurred one in every eight times and that it was perfectly feasible that Robin Bain was one of those eight.
• That the wound to Robin Bain was a contact wound.
• That contact wounds to the head are in 90 percent of cases the result of suicide. Putting it another way, fewer than 10 percent of contact wounds are the result of homicide.
• That suicide by robin Bain in any or all of the positions demonstrated by the defence was perfectly feasible and did not require any contortions of the body.
• That when he first entered room A where Robin Bain’s body was found, he could hear the whirr of the computer fan, making untenable the proposition that Robin came in and knelt down to pray unaware that someone was behind the curtains where the computer was located.
• Based upon the new evidence that he had put to him from defence pathologists Prof Cordner and Dr Chapman, he accepted that the site of entry and the angle and trajectory of the shot were the fact quite normal and did not exclude suicide at all.
• He agreed that the test firing results done with the rifle matched his original measurements of the wound to Robin Bain.
• That when he examined Robin Bain’s gunshot wound he noticed a number of skin defects including blackheads and that those sorts of things are hard to distinguish when just looking at photos.
• That if the live bullet found on the floor beside the rifle had got there as a result of a misfeed, that was hardly compatible with homicide because a person, Robin Bain, would be very unlikely to just stand there while a killer cleared the bullet and reloaded.
• There was nothing in the way Robin’s body was lying when he was discovered that contradicts the photographs showing the various positions in which he may have shot himself.
Plank C
• That the blood splash on the index fingernail of Robin Bain could have got there as a result of Robin Bain shooting someone else.
• That none of the blood on Robin Bain’s hands had been tested and that if any of that was the blood of anyone other than Robin, it would have dramatically changed his view of what happened.
• He was very concerned that two samples collected from Robin Bain’s hands had been destroyed.
• The bruise/abrasion on the back of Robin Bain’s hand had happened sometime in the 12 hours between nightfall the previous day and his death.
• He accepted that the red staining running around the top of the left thumb of Robin Bain was likely to be blood and similarly with the red smear on the base of the thumb, and that neither of these was collected as a sample.
• He said that the Crown thesis relating to 400 ml of urine in Robin’s bladder missed the point. He accepted that he was not a urologist and it was a complex area of medicine. He accepted that the important point as put to him was the way the bladder functioned rather than the amount or quality of liquid retained and also that the urge to urinate can be overridden by external events.
Dr Dempster before the decision to hold a second trial was expressing his serious doubts about the claims made by the Crown ‘that only the killer could have heard Laniet Bain Gurgling’ etc.
Letter from Dr Dempster to Robin Bates, the Crown Prosecutor, 16 May 2007.
Dear Robin,
Before any decision is made with respect to a retrial or otherwise for David Bain I feel that I should raise with you, a component of my evidence in the original trial, on which events subsequent to the trial have influenced my opinion.
It is as to whether Laniet could have continued to have respiratory activity at the time when David returned from his paper round. Assuming the alternative proposition that Robin was the killer, one would have to allow 15 min or so for him to have cleaned up after the shooting.
Subsequent to the first trial, I was the pathologist in the case of a motor vehicle crash in Kaikorai Valley Road. In that case the driver of the vehicle suffered an injury which almost completely transacted the lower brain at the point below where Laniet suffered, what I believe, was the fatal gunshot injury. The victim in the crash was reported by the ambulance officer who attended the case, about 15 minutes after it occurred , to be making a few gasping respirations when they arrived at the scene.
As a result of this case, I do not feel that I can now express a firm opinion that Laniet could not have been heard to have been making gurgling noises at the time David returned from his paper round. It is impossible to determine conclusively, the precise effect on the nervous system of any single gunshot wound unless it completely destroys the medulla or hindbrain.
At the time of the trial I felt that prosecuting counsel, as reported, placed a greater emphasis on this point than I would have preferred on the basis of my evidence. I did expect, however, that my evidence, which I assume was scrutinized by the defence pathologist from the Victorian Forensic Institute, would have been challenged, if he saw any issues in it to which he took exception. Similarly other pathologists who had scrutinized my evidence in reviews of the case have not, to my knowledge, raised specific concerns.
For what it is worth it is my opinion that a lot of the scientific evidence which was presented, not permitted to be presented (such as the ESR report on the splatter pattern on the curtain) or subsequently raised as issues by the defence (such as the length of Robin Bain’s arms), should also be critically reviewed prior to any decision concerning a retrial.
Sincerely
Alex Dempster
Footnote To This:
I had been critical of Dempster early on in the re-trial, primarily because of the information 'fed' from the Medical School at Otago University. And because of the other pathologists called by the Crown who endeavoured to offer 'expert' opinion contrary to the distance Dempster testified that the rifle had been from Robin's temple at the time of the gunshot. It was revealed however, both at that the trial, and more completely above that Dempster was not an 'all cost's Crown witness. He was a witness to the truth, willing to consider other opinions and modify his own accordingly if so influenced. Between the lines of his letter above it is clear to me, that he had doubts that David should be retried and not just discharged. But of course the Crown weren't listeniing. I apologise to Dr Dempster for what I wrote earlier, and before I understood he, almost alone it seems now, was true to his profession and his committment to forensic evidence.
Plank A
• That Laniet Bain could have been making gurgling noises when David arrived home from his paper round if Robin had shot her three times in the head 15 or more minutes before David got ome, and that the Crown had overstated matters in the first trial as far as his evidence was concerned on this issue.
• In a further matter that will be discussed in relation to the death of Laniet and the gurgling evidence, Dempster agreed that he did not examine the bullet fragments from Laniet’s head or the bullet fragments found external to her body. He accepted that if these bullet fragments contained white fibres, it meant that the bullet must have been fired through an intermediate target of white fabric and that when that happens this can cause unusual entry wounds like the one in the top of her head.
• That if Stephen Bain, lying almost naked on the floor in the freezing house, had been killed by David about 4 a.m. as the Crown postulated, his body would have got cold much quicker than Margaret, Arawa and Laniet.
Plank B
• Dempster was aware of reports that showed that right-handed people sometimes shot themselves in the left temple when committing suicide. One report indicated that this occurred one in every eight times and that it was perfectly feasible that Robin Bain was one of those eight.
• That the wound to Robin Bain was a contact wound.
• That contact wounds to the head are in 90 percent of cases the result of suicide. Putting it another way, fewer than 10 percent of contact wounds are the result of homicide.
• That suicide by robin Bain in any or all of the positions demonstrated by the defence was perfectly feasible and did not require any contortions of the body.
• That when he first entered room A where Robin Bain’s body was found, he could hear the whirr of the computer fan, making untenable the proposition that Robin came in and knelt down to pray unaware that someone was behind the curtains where the computer was located.
• Based upon the new evidence that he had put to him from defence pathologists Prof Cordner and Dr Chapman, he accepted that the site of entry and the angle and trajectory of the shot were the fact quite normal and did not exclude suicide at all.
• He agreed that the test firing results done with the rifle matched his original measurements of the wound to Robin Bain.
• That when he examined Robin Bain’s gunshot wound he noticed a number of skin defects including blackheads and that those sorts of things are hard to distinguish when just looking at photos.
• That if the live bullet found on the floor beside the rifle had got there as a result of a misfeed, that was hardly compatible with homicide because a person, Robin Bain, would be very unlikely to just stand there while a killer cleared the bullet and reloaded.
• There was nothing in the way Robin’s body was lying when he was discovered that contradicts the photographs showing the various positions in which he may have shot himself.
Plank C
• That the blood splash on the index fingernail of Robin Bain could have got there as a result of Robin Bain shooting someone else.
• That none of the blood on Robin Bain’s hands had been tested and that if any of that was the blood of anyone other than Robin, it would have dramatically changed his view of what happened.
• He was very concerned that two samples collected from Robin Bain’s hands had been destroyed.
• The bruise/abrasion on the back of Robin Bain’s hand had happened sometime in the 12 hours between nightfall the previous day and his death.
• He accepted that the red staining running around the top of the left thumb of Robin Bain was likely to be blood and similarly with the red smear on the base of the thumb, and that neither of these was collected as a sample.
• He said that the Crown thesis relating to 400 ml of urine in Robin’s bladder missed the point. He accepted that he was not a urologist and it was a complex area of medicine. He accepted that the important point as put to him was the way the bladder functioned rather than the amount or quality of liquid retained and also that the urge to urinate can be overridden by external events.
Dr Dempster before the decision to hold a second trial was expressing his serious doubts about the claims made by the Crown ‘that only the killer could have heard Laniet Bain Gurgling’ etc.
Letter from Dr Dempster to Robin Bates, the Crown Prosecutor, 16 May 2007.
Dear Robin,
Before any decision is made with respect to a retrial or otherwise for David Bain I feel that I should raise with you, a component of my evidence in the original trial, on which events subsequent to the trial have influenced my opinion.
It is as to whether Laniet could have continued to have respiratory activity at the time when David returned from his paper round. Assuming the alternative proposition that Robin was the killer, one would have to allow 15 min or so for him to have cleaned up after the shooting.
Subsequent to the first trial, I was the pathologist in the case of a motor vehicle crash in Kaikorai Valley Road. In that case the driver of the vehicle suffered an injury which almost completely transacted the lower brain at the point below where Laniet suffered, what I believe, was the fatal gunshot injury. The victim in the crash was reported by the ambulance officer who attended the case, about 15 minutes after it occurred , to be making a few gasping respirations when they arrived at the scene.
As a result of this case, I do not feel that I can now express a firm opinion that Laniet could not have been heard to have been making gurgling noises at the time David returned from his paper round. It is impossible to determine conclusively, the precise effect on the nervous system of any single gunshot wound unless it completely destroys the medulla or hindbrain.
At the time of the trial I felt that prosecuting counsel, as reported, placed a greater emphasis on this point than I would have preferred on the basis of my evidence. I did expect, however, that my evidence, which I assume was scrutinized by the defence pathologist from the Victorian Forensic Institute, would have been challenged, if he saw any issues in it to which he took exception. Similarly other pathologists who had scrutinized my evidence in reviews of the case have not, to my knowledge, raised specific concerns.
For what it is worth it is my opinion that a lot of the scientific evidence which was presented, not permitted to be presented (such as the ESR report on the splatter pattern on the curtain) or subsequently raised as issues by the defence (such as the length of Robin Bain’s arms), should also be critically reviewed prior to any decision concerning a retrial.
Sincerely
Alex Dempster
Footnote To This:
I had been critical of Dempster early on in the re-trial, primarily because of the information 'fed' from the Medical School at Otago University. And because of the other pathologists called by the Crown who endeavoured to offer 'expert' opinion contrary to the distance Dempster testified that the rifle had been from Robin's temple at the time of the gunshot. It was revealed however, both at that the trial, and more completely above that Dempster was not an 'all cost's Crown witness. He was a witness to the truth, willing to consider other opinions and modify his own accordingly if so influenced. Between the lines of his letter above it is clear to me, that he had doubts that David should be retried and not just discharged. But of course the Crown weren't listeniing. I apologise to Dr Dempster for what I wrote earlier, and before I understood he, almost alone it seems now, was true to his profession and his committment to forensic evidence.