For years Parker and cohorts have made hay out of their claim that David Bain 'won't talk' as they put it. This suited their case of persecution against David, this was the design that Karam wouldn't 'let' David talk - a quite disgusting manipulation of the truth. But that is the hate-siters tools of trade, misrepresentation's of the truth. They claimed that David didn't give evidence at the 2nd trial because he had something to hide, when in fact all of his evidence from the first trial was read to the jury, along with the cross examination and Police statements, literally thousands of words and hours of evidence and statements.
That hate-siters made these claims while they called the family he loved dysfunctional, claimed that David was odd, lazy, and hated his father, when the lie of that was revealed in 'Trial by Ambush' they sought to stop the public from reading it. Preceding that, when it was announced that David was to speak at the International Justice Conference this month they protested to the organisers that he shouldn't be allowed to speak. The same people that sought to crucify him for not speaking - wanted him silenced. They used discredited reports and articles, even quoted discredited journalists in order to stop David speaking, they bombarded the organisers with 'facts' that were pure lies and acted as though the organisers were acting under some misapprehension when of course they were not, having long been aware of the Miscarriage of Justice perpetrated upon David Cullen Bain.
These were the book burners who were afraid that people would read 'Trial by Ambush' and discover the thing they most wanted to avoid David's innocence and their guilt of being hateful persecutors, strangers to the truth and sullen souls with the hearts of executioners.
David would never found be not guilty.
David would never apply for compensation.
Karam would never sue the hate-siters.
Joe Karam would finish the book he was writing.
David would never return from his OE and find his way back into normal life.
David would never speak.
I think there is only one to go..
David won't get compensation
And perhaps another....
That David would never sue the hate-siters.
On the last we shall see, but as for the 7th, the record will be 7 in a row failed predictions for the rotten sisters, weep you rotten hateful souls, weep. And when you drag yourself from your own misery and spite think of the family you've mocked and scorned, the mother lost to heartache, the sisters driven into another life, the youngest son, having problems and needing some help, and think of the only boy left and how you hated him in vain for that which you hate in yourselves.
They cannot and will not ever admit they were wrong. They have displayed the worst of human behaviours, they have broken every religious and secular belief. They have broken humanities basic rules to carry out their campaign of hate. They can not admit the truth and remain a part of that race.
ReplyDeletewhoah, they have invaded the 60 minutes facebook page with a vengeance. All 13 of them, telling the world how it is.
DeleteA very angry lynch mob, that sees the rest of the world willing to accept that they have been conned by the prosecution and willing to accept that David may in fact be innocent. While they are stuck in a time warp of hatred and persecution from which they can't extract themselves.
And now Martin Van Beynen appears to be posting on the Counterspin site, calling himself Johnny Hammer. Reads like van Beynen to me, anyway
ReplyDeleteThe style is consistent with somebody who knows the suicide can't be denied and therefore paints a picture to titillate the disaffected. Very funny really, I'd call it 'landscape reporting or writing' short on detail and complexity but long on drum beats and changes of light.
DeleteJohnny Hammer
ReplyDeleteHad a terrible st-st-st-st-stammer
He could hardly s-s-say a word
And so they gave him medicinal compound
Now's he's seen, but never heard....
Maybe that's why he repeats the same worn-out arguments and opinions?
Doesn't explain the lack of awareness of his own cognitive dissonance, though.
Ah yes, just read it again. Attacks on the Jury, David's family and the home in which they lived. Then the gathering that it couldn't be the cops in the wrong, it had to 'one' man, the media, The Privy Council, the forensics all had to be wrong - it could not simply be the the planters of evidence though, nor the police officer who the Jury decided during the defamation trial had perjured himself. No couldn't be that, or the evidence thrown out, or the undue haste to charge David, or taking time when they realised they were paddling up sh.t creek and should turn back.
DeleteJohnny Hammerhead, has tried his hands at prose and evoking scenes to make the children cry and pull at their apron strings wailing that they knew they were right to hate, he should have saved his time and simply considered, that which he has studiously ignored - Robin's blood being inside the barrel of that rifle.
Johnny was among those who saw a specular effect, out in the open on the floor, in front of an ice skate boot, in a photograph taken on 20 June 1994. If Johnny thought the specular effect was a lens, he should question why the lens he thought he saw in the photograph wasn't found until 3 1/2 days later on the evening of 23 June 1994.
ReplyDeleteThe judge, or defending attorney or any reporter, or Johnny, could have asked, if a lens was out in the open on the floor, why wasn't it found right then when the camera and cameraman saw it?
Ironically, Johnny says he's worried about people being told what to see, and what to look for.
Johnny never thought of that. He thought it was fine that something out in the open for 31/2 days wouldn't be seen until the OIC of the scene and exhibits took it upon himself to have a 'good look' after hours, even though it wasn't his job. That officer, just like Johnny, never asked himself, or anyone else, why the other officers who had grid searched the room more than once never found it out in the open.
DeleteYes, Johnny is worried about what people are being told to see, so he's telling people what not to see. He doesn't want them to see that the police case failed because it didn't have the evidence, he wants people to see that there is no co-relation between total lack of evidence of guilt and a not guilty verdict.
My 1st knowledge of the lens was from the nightly TV1 trial 'highlights', and I can't remember any news reporting the 3 1/2 day delay between specular effect photograph and lens discovery.
ReplyDeleteMy 1st knowledge of the 3 1/2 day delay was from Joe's 1st book.
If no one in the courtroom asked a question about that timing problem, that failure(among many others) really makes them all look bad.