'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.