Thursday, March 29, 2012

Susan Couch - a complicated case?

The Crown in the Susan Couch case are arguing her suit for damages should be heard by a Judge alone by reason that it is complicated. Taking an overall view of what has been published about the case it is far from complicated. On the face of it Department of Corrections put ex prisoner William Bell to work in the Panmure RSA in a manner that was negligent as to what the result could have resulted for Susan Couch and three of her workmates that were murdered by Bell in December 2001.

Documents alleged that Bell's parole officer was inexperienced and somewhat controlled by Bell in a manner that was failed to be supervised by her bosses. The officer has name suppression and it is alleged she altered documents on the parolee's file, presumably after the event, in order to cover up the allegation of negligence. The Crown have argued that the issues a jury would need to consider are 'complex issues that were affecting the probation service at the time of the killings.' Quite what that has to do with the victim of the alleged negligence doesn't seem to have been spelt out. The case has already been to the Supreme Court who overturned earlier decisions and declared that Susan could indeed sue Corrections for negligence and personal injury 'but there would be a high test for the claim to succeed.'

Of course alleged altering of documents, poorly supervised staff who became somewhat subservient to their charge, rather than in control, would presumably be a fairly straight forward observation for any Jury, it either happened or didn't, and if it did what there was a measure liability? Of course there is another picture here, the real one, the 'complexity' is the floodgates that might be sprung as to the liability of Government Departments, or it's employees, that lead to damage or loss one way or the other to members of the public it serves.

Of course Susan Couch is not ordinary member of the public, she is the victim of a crime un-shadowed to this point in this century. She doesn't have a complaint with dog control, a parking warder, housing nz as a tenant, or even for that matter some medical misadventure. She is the victim of a crime by an offender under the control of the Government, that seems to me to be fairly straight forward to decide by a fully informed Jury. But I just have to wonder if the Crown are unable to appreciate the public perception of what their position appears to be as it unfolds.

The Crown have fought Susan Couch every step of the way. The Crown do not want to admit fault, they are already entrenched against their fear of opening floodgates. To me that doesn't seem the purpose of the Crown who, one would be entitled to expect, are not resistant to recognise their failings that accompanies any large bureaucracy. In the process of this denial of its role, the Government forces Susan to go to Court rather than be apologise to and compensated. She is re-victimised her in a way a Jury could well easily recognise - and that is why the Crown hope to complicate the case into oblivion, or until Susan dies or goes away. I think it is clear that Susan has not gone away and will not until the Government induces courage in itself to admit blame.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Progress of the case against the stalkers.

Been some chat about this on the internet recently, mostly by the hate-siters jubilant about the case lost against them. Something, according to their normal routine, which isn't quite true. The situation is that I withdrew an application against a named a former Trade Me Director, had costs ordered against me in what was the normal fashion, but which didn't take into account a position made by TM that may well later be argued contributed to the costs. I appealed the costs and eventually reached a settlement. Not withstanding that it remains that I have options against TM itself, and in fact an indication from them earlier, to be included in the proceedings, the application against the Director resulted in TM board rules being changed, and three other defendants removed from the boards. Weighing those results gives rise to the question was it worth it? Of course only I can answer that, but I was happy to see TM reposition itself some what on the matter of board stalking and members privacy and for some of the worst offenders to be sidelined.

It remains however that the TM director was 1 of 4 defendants. 2 of whom settled, but who may yet be seen to have breached their agreements at least for a short period. Meanwhile, the Application proceeds against the remaining defendant along with a request to enjoin another hate-site member who was active before the proceedings and during them.. So the basking in the 'reflected glory' of the withdrawal of proceedings against the TM director is an attempt 'to always look on the bright side of life' as the song goes. Much of what has unfortunately found its way onto the internet is, yes as one would see as par for the course, criticism and spiteful comment about the lawyer representing me. The leopard in fact does not change it spots it merely looks for new targets to stalk. So I've written this to answer some of those unfortunate comments made by a number of hate-siters most of whom have been identified now. In the process of all of this, and looking at enjoining a 5th  person I've needed to look at the file again in detail and co-relate more recent material - even after almost 2 years it is shocking to see the attacks made against families by a group that claim to be seeking justice for Robin Bain. The same group who have attacked a jury, witnesses and even the publication of book while at all times been willing to stalk and intimidate people they see as opposition.

I recently published the musings of a hate-siter about what drove the group, or him in particular, and his contribution that if David remained silent, didn't apply for compensation as is his lawful right, if he hadn't spoken out, if 'Trial by Ambush' hadn't been published and with David having kept below 'the parapet' then the group would not be after David and others. A message for that group if they didn't get before, I repeat an opinion is one thing, law breaking, threats, lying, defamation, harassment and stalking quite another - the results of which all have lawful consequences. Along with that, in the message to this group, who defend Robin with lies, oppose his detractors unlawfully - NZ begins to see what and who you are.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Hate siters - busy stalking.......

Look what the cat dragged in......

Kent Parker Given that his comments use the same language as the blog, it is pretty dumb for him to try and deny!
8 hours ago ·  · 2
Vic Pur Also knowing the exact amount of costs against him is a good indication who .... really is.
8 hours ago ·  · 3
Christine Williams Not to mention the ' Kenty ' bit.
8 hours ago ·
Harriet Bond you should out them to Oz media while you are at it, the Perth in particular :)
6 hours ago ·
Kent Parker Yes, that is the plan. If you want to help with that then register at counterspin where we are discussing it.
6 hours ago ·
Harriet Bond long registered :)
6 hours ago ·
Kent Parker I see they deleted the entire thread. Not before it was read no doubt.
3 hours ago ·
Denise Cameron Damn. I was too late. Any chance of you repeating your outing of ...... for those of us who missed it Kent??? Or maybe someone saved the thread???
about an hour ago ·
Vic Pur Try posting under another topic already running.
about an hour ago ·
16 minutes ago · 

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Martin Van Beynan - preaching.

I've noted at least twice when writing about the Bain case mvb has heading his pieces as 'OPINION.' I assume that is to avoid expressing an opinion based on facts. On the 14 the of March 2012 mvb released an opinion piece titled 'Bain charms audience with keynote sermon.'

This related to David's decision to speak publicly about his experiences as a person who has experienced at actual miscarriage of Justice which resulted in him wrongfully spending 13 years in prison. Mvb has pointedly led an opposition to the notion that David is not guilty, even after a finding of not guilty verdicts against David for the deaths of 5 of his immediate family. In various ways mvb has focused on 'evidence' against David which has been disproved or fully answered in such a way that suggests the mvb has an understanding of the evidence in a more critical way than the Jury, or the Crown, or the Defence, and that therefore he is right and they are wrong. He's even been warned by the Justice Department not to continue harassing jurors.

I stand to be corrected, but I have not once read anything from mvb which attempts to refute the strong body of forensic evidence against Robin Bain, David's father - a man who suicided inside a house which contained 4 dead bodies all shot with the same rifle that Robin used to despatched himself to the hereafter. There were concessions by the Crown, and some of its foremost witnesses, in the retrial that David may not have been home at the time a computer was turned on and which was found a suicide note. There was general avoidance by the Crown or it's witnesses to tackle the fact that Robin, the dead father, had blood wash or smears on the inside of his hands which arrived there before his death, that there was a misfired cartridge near his dead body that meant that the rifle had been reloaded in the process of his death. There is a lot more, a quite exhaustive list, which however mvb has never dealt with such has been his apparent obsession to chortle out headlines and statements not derived from sustained facts.

In his 'normal' form in reporting on David's presentation mvb reverts to 'opinion' as though in this form he is able to convince a reader without hard facts, similarly as it prevails, he has done with his 'direct reporting' supported by an absence of facts or balance to the 2 sides of the argument concerning the Bain familicide. He disputes that the police investigation was not a good one, saying it was compared to many others aired at the conference. Of course he makes no explanation why the dead father was never investigated for incest, why David was charged before forensic tests had been completed and the results considered, why David was asked leading questions that he couldn't possibly know the answers for and which left with the weight of not knowing the explanation for evidence against him - proving somehow that he was therefore guilty. Mvb never touched upon the fact that the primary evidence before David's arrest was that his 'fingerprints were found on blood in blood on the rifle' something ultimately proved as completely false, and perhaps even deliberately used against him with the knowledge that it was false. Certainly mvb reported this 'evidence' at length even after it was refuted. Not once did mvb show reasons for him to conclude that there had been 'shoddier' investigations revealed at the conference in comparison to the Bain investigation. He merely expected the reader, despite a wealth of information to the contrary, to accept the Bain inquiry had been a 'textbook investigation.' This despite police officers under oath at the trial testifying otherwise.

Of the fanciful weaving by mvb he relied on the fact that David and his mother were planning to build a new house and to exclude David, a direct lie when compared to evidence where David had said that his hope was for his parents to reconcile. So is it the evidence that lies from the pages of the trial transcript or is it mvb? Does he propose that the  genuine evidence is ignored in favour of discredited theories that resulted in one mis- trial followed by a trial where 5 not guilty verdicts were returned. I'm sure he does, because that has been his modus operandi for many years, spreading untruths about the Bain case and therefore feeding the persecution against David.

So mvb had warmed up without touching on any realities of the case that should give him, or anyone, pause before advertising his 'opinion.' Then we have the opinion that David's speech came across 'like a speech from a charismatic preacher' and the delegates (excluding mvb of course with his deep insights and experience of the case) found him (David) 'impressive and charming.' Of course mvb had rendered his opinion in such a way that he wasn't 'taken in' but that the less informed may very well have been. Quite why David needed to sermonise wasn't pointed out by mvb, and so was left hanging in such a way that David had 'conned' the conference but not the 'enlightened' van beynan.

Mvb finished by another sideways swipe at David's advocate Joe Karam, describing him as being emotional as though being moved, as had a vast part of the audience, according to mvb's own description, was somehow odd or perhaps even conniving. Mvb rounded off with some direct reporting of what David said in his presentation as though forgetting for a moment his role as offering an opinion compared to direct reporting. It should be noted that mvb has been adopted in some sense by the hate-sites who greedily accept what ever he says that is negative about Joe or David. To this point mvb has never put the public perception right because he is yet delve deeply into the Bain case, and in particular the evidence against Robin, until, or if he does, there will be many that see mvb as linked to persuading the public of the views of the hate-sites. Opinion? possibly, fair and objective reporting - not by any stretch.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

John Poynton - more of his work.

This charcoal and paint has come light caught on the right hand side in photographed reproduciton, the person who this was purchased from described it as a 'morning scene.' I did promise to put this up earlier and my apologies for the delay, life recently has been a little hectic until I was overcome by the need to bring this picture out.

The great thing about art is that it is to each of us something different, and what the artist or writer has created is an attempt to free the imagination of the viewer or the reader. In this work from John finished in 1995 I see a whole of life scene at least from childhood to middle age. There seems to be a longing there of an earlier innocent time before the child became a woman and her life was crossed over by moon light and love once stark upon the horizon. But whatever it was that John was showing us, it certainly allowed the imagination free reign.

Friday, March 16, 2012

A hate-siters view of the world

The following was blogged elsewhere and is a great example of the way a hate-siter sees the world. The poster reveals that harassing David Bain and Joe Karam is a hobby, and that it keeps his mind alert. He appears quite chuffed by the lawyers analogy that he was like a car the lawyer once had that after the motor was turned off it would start up again, apparently unaware that the lawyer teasingly admonishing him for wasting his time.

All rather innocent, if somewhat inane, until the poster clearly relaxed goes on to point out that David Bain and Joe Karam have virtually got what's coming to them for going about their lawful business. I've blogged a little about books recently and this hate-siter demonstrates the reaction I written about that the hate-siters have to books or anything they 'deem' evil or dangerous. Freedom of speech or writing is therefore dangerous, but so is simply living your life as a free man without the approval of a coven of hate-siters, Freedom from persecution doesn't even get a look in with this sick fellow because he is 'entitled' to start the 'motor up again' in reaction to what Joe or David might decide to do.

The poster interestingly enough, was speaking with my lawyer, an unsolicited call to lie about an agreement he signed to avoid a court case continuing against him. A call of which this person anticipates is free, that the lawyer works for free for the 'old motor mouth' that just starts up again after it has shut down. This person claims that he doesn't know about any agreement although he signed it first, he claims it was never returned in the mail to him. Although he obviously knows the proceedings, until now, had been suspended on both his word and his signature to an agreement. So he is a dishonest welcher, who won't even pay for his own lawyer and thinks that persecution is a 'hobby.'

This man is of very low intelligence, or just cunningly stupid. He abided by the agreement faithfully, even wrote to Trade Me giving details of the agreement that he wrote that he had signed until he entered his mind that he might resume his activities 'under disguise.' A disguise, unfortunately for him, that was immediately obvious. He then went through a series of excuses until ringing my lawyer to claim that there was no agreement because he'd never received it 'back.' Of course none of that explains why the Court was informed of the agreement, why he abided by the agreement, including writing to Trade Me and explaining that in some detail (he obviously didn't expect that TM might check his 'story' out) - none would explain any of those things, nor his apparent willingness to continue his stalking and harassing under disguise, which when found out, he immediately denied before give a series of explanations each more fantastic than the former. He may even think that he convinced the lawyer and therefore me, and that we are both some how stupid or forgiving of an old man who thinks harassment is a past time. This same fellow had an indecent fixation with somebody in my family and has written at least twice about reasons that might 'excuse' paedophilia. Many people will know who he is and might consider why he wouldn't 'keep his head down.' Many people might wonder why this hate-site administrator 'raises his head above the parapet' but he will have time to have that considered in Court, along with the merit of his word and his 'hobby.'

Yvette,to be honest,I have to agree with you.I was speaking to a lawyer yesterday[not mine,I don't have one]and he reckoned that I and others like me should get a hobby.I told him this is my hobby.Actually, I do find it keeps the old mind alert,specially the memory.He likened some of us to a car he had,he said he used to turn the motor off and it would start up again.
Look,if only Bain would keep his head down.Everything had gone reasonably quiet,and then we had the news about the compensation claim.Then he pops up on TV3.Then he speaks at that injustice conference.And of course there was that book.
Every time he raises his head above the parapet the motor starts up again.Jinny and I have been at it for over two years.Same old,same old.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

More stuff the cultists don't want the public to know.

The following was first published elsewhere to an audience that have some cultists vainly trying to avoid the details that show the high probability/certainty of Robin Bain's suicide. In order to do so they congratulate one another of nonsense, accuse anyone opposing them of lying, demand proof and when they get proof start writing about something else such as, what David 'said' in Perth, or that Robin was a 'lovely' man. He might have been in fact, and certainly was before his wife went cold on him and those consistent stories started surfacing about his daughter intending to go to the police to complain.

  • Something more for the cultists. Details of the suicidee’s hands, with blood smears on the palms. Heading into several weeks now and no explanation from the cultists about the smears, explanations for every bit of inconceivable nonsense that could be imagined but nothing to get the dead father away from his suicide. The cultists know all of this because they have a specially developed website that has ‘all’ the evidence but you won’t find this there, I wonder why. Two cultists wouldn't take a bet that David was strip searched and found not to have any scratches on his body, they wouldn't take a bet that Robins dna was found inside of the barrel. Note Doyle admitting destroying evidence without testing it. That was around day 3 of the trial and the Crown never recovered, ultimately capitulated trying to move away from the final death scene and admitting that Robin could have turned the computer on.

  • A. Q. I’d like you to look please at a job sheet of Detective Lodge and you’ll see this is a job sheet of Detective Lodge of the 20th of June 1994, do you see that?

  • A. A. Yes

  • A. Q. And if you turn over please to the third page under a heading of “Move body and further examining” –

  • A. A. Yes.

  • A. Q. – you will see at 1505, 3.05 hours, he records, “Smear of blood on heel of thumb inside left hand, also a smear on left little finger, no blood on right hand.” Do you see that?

  • A. Correct.

  • ——————————————————————————–
    Reed to Doyle:
    Q. We have blood on the heel of the thumb, no photograph taken, no sample tested, do you 
    understand that, do you want to disagree?
    A. No, no.
    Q. That went to the grave with Robin Bain. Now we know that this blood was on the hands of 
    Robin Bain because one of your detectives, Detective Lodge, did a diagram showing where 
    this blood was.  I would like you to look at this please?
    Q. This is a diagram I want to put to you, done by Detective Lodge, do you remember 
    Detective Lodge?
    A. Yes I do.
    Q. Now this shows of course only the tops of the hands, it doesn’t show the blood 
    underneath the hand, but if you look to the right-hand side of the diagram you will see a 
    marking, “Blood smear by little finger”?
    A. Correct
    Q. See that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. That is exhibit 97, which is the one I have referred you to already, which is, “Two smear on 
    slide of traces of blood on left hand of Robin” see that?
    A. Correct?
    Q. That was never tested, but destroyed by you – by your orders wasn’t it?
    A. That’s correct
  • Monday, March 12, 2012

    'Key' question from TV1s Steve Marshall

    Of course most followers of the tragic Bain case know that the familicide happened in 1994, 18 years ago come June this year. David was the only person alive in the house when the police arrived to find 5 deceased, including David's father Robin in what can be described as the classic collapse following a suicide shot to the left temple. Naturally over the next few days David was interviewed, made several statements and was, and it is shown now, arrested cruelly in such a manner that he was unable to attend the funerals of his dead family.

    When formally charged, the young man, who had been relatively complaint because of his faith in the police and because he knew he was innocent,  said 'I'm not guilty.' Something he was to repeat 5 times at a later depositions hearing, and the mistrial which resulted in his false imprisonment. Following his conviction being overturned and facing a new trial when asked if he was guilty or not he repeated 5 times that he was not guilty.

    Following the longest criminal trial in NZ history an empanelled Jury were asked, following their deliberations, how they found David, 'guilty or not guilty?' As history shows they returned 5 not guilty verdicts after a very short time. So one man for approaching half of his life was found not guilty of charges that had stolen a dozen or more years of his life, throughout that period he had always maintained his innocence, something which had keep him going in a hostile environment without a future.

    All relatively, apart from the tragedy, complete. Well complete except that David's life was never to be the same after he lost his family. Furthermore to be falsely imprisoned as well makes it difficult to imagine what worse misadventure could happen upon one man. It was that one man that spoke at the recent International Justice Conference in Perth. David might have viewed it as therapeutic, or simply have been driven by the need to be part of a consciousness that should be of interest to all people, that systems of civil governance can go horribly wrong, failed by those empowered to operate them - mere men and women with the same potential prejudices, hate, apathy or even disdain when they enter the lives of others with the power of the state behind them. While some may uphold the challenge of remaining dispassionate, others might fall foul of the power that may give an intoxicating god-like view of themselves and be consumed to a greater or lesser degree by that. Those that do fall victim to the power, fall a long way into a state of their own importance, falling blind at the same time to their sworn duties. So David may have wished to speak for a number of reasons, reasons entirely divorced from those that I suggest. But what he clearly spoke about was his own experience as an innocent man sought to be slowly slain by god-like figures of right and Justice, and by others who were compelled not to speak out, abide their duty or those that simply looked away.

    So again something approaching two decades of saying 'I didn't kill my family' and an acquittal behind him.Enter Steve Marshall TV1 reporter, listen to his intro if you watch the news clip, he had a 'key question,' seemingly something new and important and he believed that David had taken 'the gamble' by attending a media conference after his presentation of the way his life had been stolen and largely destroyed by the forces of the state gone wrong. Steve Marshall, against all the past background of the Bain case, and indeed having sat through   the presentation by David needed to ask the 'key question' did you kill your family?

    Sunday, March 11, 2012

    Typical Cultists from TM

    Here we see those that defend Robin by attacking his dead family. Generally, Stephen is seldom a target but as the following shows all of the deceased children and their mother are fair game in 'protecting' the reputation of Robin.

    The debate on TM is far past its used-by date as the following shows. 'Evidence' is plucked from the air in order to defend Robin. What is in fact happening on TM, because they continue to allow this type of untruthful material to be published, is that on-line harassment of David Bain continues. The debate has gone into the realms of fantasy for Robin's supporters, most of whom were ill informed as to the case from the outset. I believe it is important for any message board (or it's equivalent the papers) to publish carefully the truth, and strike a balance between conflicting views or evidence. Van Beynan has led The Press into the role of persecutor because his selective writings on the Bain case to this point have left out important features of why David was acquitted, the same reasons that make it likely that he will receive compensation.

    In terms of the general responsibilities of publishers it is lost for the moment that any publisher that publishes or allows to be published material which is substantially wrong or imbalanced, and if that material, has the effect of  persecuting a individual, group, race or culture then the publisher is liable under the Law. We may yet see a challenge against either or both The Press or Trade Me on that. The Press for example because it has allowed Van Beynan free rein even apparently supported his Jury stalking, because they never sacked him on the evidence of it. Trade Me on the other hand, are not only being sued for what they've published on the Bain case, but they have also relied on a unrealistic model to control a 'contentious subject' in such a way that they've realistically had no control or thought about the overall implications of allowing, for example, Bain, Karam and even the Jury and lawyers  to have their privacy and reputations impinged by material they haven't satisfied themselves that were not lies, or intended not only to be defamatory, but to harass and destroy reputations and lives

    I think it is likely that TM will soon appreciate this position and remedy it. As for The Press, well I don't know, perhaps public opinion, The Press Council or even litigation may assist them into line. In the meantime it is interesting to note the 'feeder.' The 'feeder' is largely one man, the reporter Van Beynan, published in The Press, then republished on the hate-sites, and directly from the hate-sites and at times the press onto TM and other boards. He says fingerprints in blood and that's what it becomes, even after the evidence is disproved, and even when the person who gave the evidence is exposed, Van Beynan remains largely silent, as he has done on so much of the forensic proof against Robin Bain. Accidental, I don't think so, even if considered by sheer volume. Deliberate? without doubt.

    In the meantime we see the product of feeding in the following:

    • Poor man, that would make me feel down too. He never was clinically diagnosed with depression and his school said he was good with the children and they all liked him and hadnt seen any sign of clinical depression.
      The depression is another red herring for this poor slaughtered man, not content with all of this gossip, theories and innuendo's, the blame has been squarely placed on his shoulders by a few people not least the loving son. Disgraceful court case, disgraceful behaviour from the jury and Davids camp all in the name of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Edited by phae at 4:48 pm, Sun 11 Mar
      phae (39 )  4:47 pm, Sun 11 Mar #125
    • As above except that was not mum pushing David away and planning to go off with Stephen instead?
      mercury14 (199 )  5:05 pm, Sun 11 Mar #126

    Ashamed to be a New Zealander - from a correspondent

    OK, so here's the story of what actually happened at the conference today.
    Lindy Chamberlain wept when she talked of baby Azaria in her speech; Tipple choked when he described his battle for her; Ochoa got distinctly wobbly-voiced when he described how his mother was stressed to the point of a stroke by his false conviction; Estelle Blackburn had to pause and wipe her eyes describing her fight for John Button; Rubin Carter and John Artis choked up describing the way their lives changed for ever and so many years were stolen from them; Barry Scheck got emotional when talking about the great numbers he has helped and the horror of the even greater numbers needing help.
    David did his speech, and the whole room was in tears; everyone was enormously moved by the love and courage David showed, and by the enormity of what this man had gone through. It's been a day of sadness in some ways: of loss and betrayal by the system that is supposed to be there to protect us
    So David was no different. What was particularly shocking was that not only did he get wrongly convicted of a heinous crime, but that was on top of finding his family dead and the profound emotional devastation that caused; it was on top of not being allowed to attend his family's funerals and say goodbye. What was different, and silenced everyone listening, was the enormity of what he went through. Lindy Chamberlain lost a baby and then in effect her other children. But David lost his whole family.

    In his speech, David went through his family, delivering a eulogy for each person, with great love, respect and affection. He had to stop regularly to gather his composure, frequently his voice became choked and his jaw worked as he tried to regain control. David described the shock and sheer terror of what happened that morning in painful detail, having to pause to calm his voice and his indignation palpable at the end. The delegates were all, without exception, enormously shocked by what he had said; deeply sympathetic, and respecting his fortitude in being able to speak about it.

    And then, as soon as his talk was over (and the journos had all been sitting in the back) they went off for the press conference. The first question asked was 'David, did you kill your family?' Then "David, why did you say you hated your father?'
    Everyone at the conference was shocked at the crassness, cruelty and blatant stupidity of the questions. Hotel staff wre gossiping about it in shocked disbelief. One of the bars decided that they would not serve the journalists. Delegates accosted and asked for their opinions refused to answer, treating the journalists with the contempt everyone felt they deserved.

    And then? Off they went. They had had their opportunity to savage David, to kick at him when he had spoken so eloquently and movingly. They took it, spitefully and callously, and then left.

    Did they avail themselves of the opportunity to inform themselves about the conference, about the common features of miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions? Apparently not. Did they take advantage of the opportunity to talk to international lawyers, forensic scientists, criminal profilers, and all the others working for the sake of true justice? No, but they did spend time in the casino. And they asked a man who had just spoken for an hour of the pain, grief and suffering he had experienced and obviously still feels at finding his beloved family dead; who had described in detail what had happened....whether he had killed them.

    Would those journalists' mothers be proud of them? I think not.
    I was ashamed to be a New Zealander today.

    (My footnote, one of those journalists was Martin Van Beynan, associated to the hate-sites at least by being quoted and lauded there. He has a support base of hate-siters, and his question was about hate and it was a distored lie, I'll include the name of the other 'journalist' when I have it confirmed.)

    Saturday, March 10, 2012

    When the Crown in the Bain case finally knew they were sunk.

    Part of the following was posted by me somewhere else. A few changes made for in the interests of clarity: I should also point out that in his book 'Trial by Ambush' Karam makes it clear that the Prosecution had been unaware of several critical aspects of omissions in the Crown case, and no doubt the concession was in recognition of those omissions and further pointed evidence that showed that with the omissions concluded the Crown case against David failed.

    So when the Crown capitulated and conceded that Robin could have turned the computer on, they were accepting he was the killer unless they were advancing the theory that Robin walked about the house with all the dead present before David returned. I say 'walked about the house because of the evidence of Robin's footprints, with a presumed start of leaving Stephen's room, by the far the bloodiest. In reality the footprints weren't needed to prove the case against Robin, other evidence did that, the computer turn on time, Mrs Laney seeing David at the gate, but more importantly the forensic evidence of suicide.  After the concession as to that Robin could have turned the computer on, the Crown never advanced that theory that Robin 'walked among the dead innocent of their deaths' because they would have looked sillier than they already did, wholly let down by the investigative staff.
    That concession was that David had an alibi supported by his sighting at the gate and the computer turn on time up to 5 minutes earlier. What they were also conceding but, like Robin walking among the dead, never said as much was that the police had deliberated ‘persuaded’ witnesses to the idea that their papers had been delivered early, in other words that David had fabricated a false alibi of being earlier rather than on time. When the police thought of this extraordinary ‘false alibi’ with which to accuse David, it apparently never troubled them, the first Jury and presumably the lawyers in the first trial, the fact of the papers in the box actually proved their delivery and if David needed a ‘false alibi’ it was to delay his return home rather than shorten his return time. That’s what happens in mojs, fantastic, nonsensical, scenarios are occupied to mislead the Court.
    The police were successful in this subterfuge in the 1st trial because they hid the information that officer Anderson’s watch was 2 minutes fast when he recorded Cox’s determination of the computer turn on time, and additionally by hiding the fact that Denise Laney told the police that her car clock was five minutes fast and the police had confirmed that, so 7.40 at the gate was actually 7.45.
    In related evidence, Anderson said that if he had been asked he would have admitted that his watch was fast. While kleitjnes brought into bolster, or ‘cloud’ the true time of the computer turn on, admitted that his opinion evidence, based on two time points which were bisected to give an estimated turn on time, relied on one extreme that was an impossibility, a bit like the whole case.
    I don't expect that Justice Binnie can effectively deal with the above, along with the specific evidence of suicide by any satisfactory means helpful to the Robin cult.

    Thursday, March 8, 2012

    The woeful, breast bursting lament of a twisted sister.

    Deb Coates finds it ironic that the 'Hang David' phrase is used despite there being evidence at the second trial that ex police officer Weir painted 'Hang Bain' on his own home to show his dispassionate policing style free of emotion. Additionally, Deb gets almost tearful in reciting a 'poor man accused in a public court of murder?suicide, escaping kooky once again that it is indeed courts were people are accused of crimes. Perhaps kooky things such things happen in hay barns, or is as her wont on message boards. She expresses her deep feelings, and indeed so deep were her feelings that she invented a little story of having a copy of a pathologists report that didn't exist. She was able to reveal from that secret, non-existing document, that Laniet had never been pregnant and was therefore a liar and I suppose that encapsulates dear kooky's deep feelings for the Bain children, something that others might consider consistent with pure hate.

    Of course Deb is on at least her second crusade on Trade Me where earlier she was the banned poster Balisal. Crusaders and persecutors these days ain't so bright.

    It's ironic you cite "hang David" as your concern, because the main reason people like myself are so upset over this issue is that a dead man cannot speak for himself and certain quarters have zero regard at for his reputation. A poor man accused in public court of murder/suicide. Some of us care very deeply about the remaining family members (this does not include David clearly, who believes his father murdered his siblings and wife) and how they feel every time another syrup coated article, another book, TV interview or television horse back piece is viewed.
    Edited by kulkkulbelle at 12:23 pm, Wed 7 Mar
    kulkkulbelle (436 )  12:19 pm, Wed 7 Mar #33

    Sunday, March 4, 2012

    Van Beynan still attacks

    Martin Van Beynan, self-styled 'expert' on the Bain familicide can't let go as is article on this morning shows. It's important to put mvb's position on the Bain case into perspective to note his 'investment' in what some could consider his efforts to promote condemnation of David Bain and Joe Karam.

    Van Beynan has positioned himself as somebody who has written about the Bain case since the 1990s, he appears to see that as some sort of qualification despite all these years later he has never revealed an in-depth understanding of the Bain case and in particular the evidence of Robin's suicide. In fact he has avoided that somewhat like avoiding the plague. He has instead relied upon attacking the deceased family, the mother in particular, the daughter said to be the victim of incest who became a prostitute and of whom there was evidence that she was going to disclose her father, the abuser, to the police just preceding the familicide. His constant attack has always been against David Bain however, the only survivor who would spend over a decade in prison for his father's crimes.

    In some ways mvb has been on a crusade, one remarkably similar to several hate-sites that have arisen since David's acquittal in 2009. These sites claim contact with mvb as measure of their 'credibility,' quoting him and his articles and so forth. That they use some similar tactics brings with its own story. MVB has been cautioned by the Justice Department for Juror harassment post trial, the hate-sites have continued an attack against the jurors for nearly 3 years. MVB has praised the dead father Robin Bain and suggested that all the evidence against him of depression, incest and the like are fabrications made up by a number of unrelated people in unrelated ways. Many of those people professionals, psychologists and the like mvb and the hate-sites see these individuals as a group driven to 'defame' the dead father using clichés such as 'gossip,' 'innuendo,' 'downright lies,' 'smoke screens' and so on. That clichés do not evidence make is apparently of no moment to them but sure is a way of getting a message without content across, each relying on the other for support of their nonsense and confirmation of their enlightenment.

    I've read much of what mvb has written on the Bain case but find it characterised by that which he will not go near, Robin's suicide for example, the damaged condition of Robin's hands, the blood smears on his palms that must have been there before he suicided, the spatter on his shoe that was not his own, the spatter on his trouser leg that showed his leg was raised in a suicide pose before he killed himself and the non-shielding of any spatter from his left where any gunman would have had to stand. In the 1000s of words written by Van Beynan I don't recall he has accepted that David Bain was stripped searched on the morning of the killings and found to have no injuries consistent with being in a fight or violence that attended that morning. Notably also, is his apparent silence that Robin Bain's brain matter was found deep inside the barrel of the rifle found beside his body. Of course dealing with these things requires dealing with the real issues and proof of the case against Robin, no objective 'report' on the case can possibly ignore them or rely instead on 'sensational' mantras most of which are now crippled and lifeless in the face of truth.

    Make of the similarity of what the hate-sites say and what MVB says as what you will, draw your own conclusions. When you have done so perhaps consider the hate-sites campaign against Joe Karam's latest book and it's description as something other than showing the enormous shortfalls in the construction and logic of the failed case against David. Also read mvb piece the same weekend as the books release and note his personal animosity against Joe Karam and the total lack of dealing with Robin's suicide, instead 'relying' on an attack against the family home and the alleged futility of the mother being able to plan to build her own home. Even in death mvb and the sites must pick at Margaret Bain and her deceased children in order to justify the ongoing harassment of her only living child. A picture emerges, one not too carefully hidden. A picture which has as it focus, Joe Karam in the first instance, a jealously of some sort, then almost as an after thought the man against whom no evidence substantially stands apart from the false tongues of the gossipers.

    Mvb's piece today, must of course by the man's own inclination, attack that David speaks on national TV tonight and is due to speak with Joe Karam this week in Australia at a conference that it is no secret van beynan  was going to attend, not by invitation might I add. The same conference the hate-sites were shut down from commenting on but who claim they would 'have people' there and we again see a connection of will and the tactics to attack anybody that stands in way of the quest.

    Just on that quest for a moment, do not forget that the hate-sites face 100s of defamation charges and are closed down to the public apart from defamatory propaganda in anguished display. The hate-sites are banned from many message boards, understood as to their purpose and the morality of that.. They are people prepared even to threaten to go after the children of their detractors. These same people who called for Bain to speak and who are now beside themselves in anxiety that he does, follow the similar line in today's article from mvb that calls for David to explain nonsense already considered by a Jury and seen to be nothing more than than extensions of possibilities of evidence against David that don't rise over the threshold of guilt and which make no impression at all on that which Mr Van Beynan retires from - Robin's suicide.

    Saturday, March 3, 2012

    Parker shoots himself in his other foot.

    Kent Parker decided to inflame the sisters to go on the boards wherever they could attacking the book 'Trial by Ambush,' it never occurred to them that message boards would obviously have to take into account their potential financial liability from any loss of sales caused by hosting the sisters. We saw idiots start thread after thread on the same subject, no doubt considering they were achieving something other than their own demise. As it transpires Trade Me in particular recognised the liability and understood that it was heightened not only by allowing the sisters free rein, but more particularly by idiots commenting, and frothing at the mouth over a book they hadn't read.

    Anyway, in a relatively short time the threads have gone and so have a lot of the idiots, those so afraid of the truth that they conspired against a book - the book burners. Book burners throughout time have burnt books from fear of others learning the truth, or even in some cases of others beginning to think for themselves and see how they might have been deceived, persecuted or down-trodden. Well, today books remain as relevant as ever, newspapers begin to struggle in competition against publishing in cyberspace, but book remain holding their own place, mobile and portable, no requiring any power, pass word or particular location to be read and enjoyed.

    Kent Parker sought to take nzers back to the dark ages, considered even that witchcraft rituals and black magic should be promoted as the sisters knitted voodoo dolls while cats slunk about their darkened covens because persecution is darkness, it is that which makes a rabble bay for the blood of strangers they might not even know but whose deaths shall bring pleasure for their corrupted souls. Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss have their own demons to face but that will be in the bright light of the Auckland High Court,  when instead they might wish for the darkness that has accompanied their evil against David Cullen Bain. The man they lied about and mocked, the man they said would never speak, as it was some right of theirs to hear from him, but hear they will if they but have the courage to watch 60minutes tomorrow night.

    Kent Parker, it will be recalled, was obliquely referred to by Joe Karam as being one of those for whom the 'dust was yet to settle.' The grotesque figure he tried to portray an innocent man has, becomes himself - but Kent isn't innocent. He's a nutter, out thought on all sides. He will contribute though, as he has done already, to show who pulled the puppet strings attached to his every move. There will be no settlement with Parker, that time literally passed 2 years ago with their arrogant dismissal of common sense, he and Purkiss will soon be seen to have measurably destroyed their own lives in their efforts to slay Justice in NZ and their efforts to destroy the victim of many crimes and who now, despite all of that, remains a man of dignity.