No answer from Kenty.

Sometimes I think old Kenty has got the huff with me even though I could never imagine why. I've always been pretty helpful to Kent. I warned him of the possibility of being sued, something which he chose to ignore. I offered advice once he had been sued that he didn't have a dog's show and that he should retract and settle. Now, by all accounts, his own twisted sisters are plating a rope in anticipation of him copping it in record time in  the Auckland High Court next year. One thing about the sisters is that they enjoy any lynching and apparently there is much excitement at the prospect of Kent's metaphorical hanging in 2013.

On the subject of Kent rejecting helpful advice, or painful remedies to help him recognise that his feathers don't have to have all fallen out to indicate his goose is cooked, I wrote him the following in response to receiving information that he was still at it publishing defamatory material on his rotten hate-site. But he's not talking, he's got the pip with me for some reason, either that or he's deliberately trying to hurt my feelings. Oh gosh.

Perhaps in Kent's mind he considers that not removing the defamatory material may prove that he's not responsible for it, an old and rejected argument he's used before.

Dear Kent

Kent the following are examples of public defamation on your site Counterspin. The yellow highlighted comments are from your site in the form of a blog of avid David Bain hater who purports in the circumstances of the blog to be an ‘impartial observer.’ The red comments point out why the comments are defamatory, these were sent to me by an appropriate party who monitors your site for defamatory comment and hate speech. In these particular circumstances the comments bring defamatory comments linked with the purpose of attempting to engender public hatred against David Bain and his legal advisers. Both yourself and the author are responsible for these comments. The comments can not be sustained with fact, and do not constitute reasonable opinion because they are divorced from physical evidence. As you are aware a verdict of not guilty in a New Zealand High Court has been entered on this matter, therefore the comments are most likely in contempt of the Court. Not withstanding any of the above, there are unconfirmed reports that Justice Ian Binnie has concluded that David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities. Therefore the whole concept of his implied guilt, alleged behaviour and conduct is dissolved in law.

I will be forwarding this on to other parties for their consideration. Due to your experiences of date you may, or may not react to my advice that you remove this material, the poster, and or shut down your site. It does you a great disservice with the charges that you already face that you continue to allow defamation and hate-speech on your public site.

Yours faithfully

Against David Bain first,as there is more evidence pointing to him as being the perpetrator than there is against his father.(no there isn’t and according to the leaked Binnie report this is on dangerous ground)

Just prior to the trial David Bain's lawyer told the Crown prosecutor that David was going to admit to wearing those glasses that were found in his room on the Sunday and the days prior. (This is disputed and there is no proof. Mr X's implication is that David lied)

Now to those scratches or bruises on David Bain's torso. How did they get there? The only person who can answer that question is David Bain and he says he doesn't know how the answer to that question.
Now his defence team say that those marks weren't there on the Monday morning because when Dr Pryde examined Bain he strip-searched him and didn't note those marks on a diagram on which he had noted those bruises on David Bain's head,that nick on his knee and the tattoo that David Bain on his left arm above the bicep.
But does this mean that Dr Pryde actually had Bain remove that T-shirt that he had been wearing?
When he was giving his speech at that Injustice Conference Bain said he was medically strip-searched and that every orifice was examined.
As an impartial observer I have to ask the question "How did Bain get those scratches on his torso". I can't help thinking that they are linked to those fibres from the green jersey that the killer wore that were found beneath Stephen's fingernails. (In this he is ignoring the fact that there is evidence that those scratches did not exist that morning and are therefore irrelevant)

However an impartial observer would have thought it would be rather unusual for a right-handed man to shoot himself in the left temple. (No, it’s very common)

an affidavit was signed and sent to the Ministry of Justice[24/8/2010] by Laniet's best friend at Bayfield College. She said that Laniet had told her that David had been molesting her. Her friend said she had to leave home and she found a place for her to stay at. But a couple of weeks later David came to the school and told her everything would be ok if she came home again. (The writing of the affidavit and submission of it is one thing. Publication of this summary of the content is defamatory)

Disturbed by David's behaviour as a child Margaret and robin sought leave from the Church so as to take him to Darwin for pschiatric assessment and counselling. David denied under oath that he had ever had pschiatric counselling. (This is accusing David of perjury) 

                                                  ----------------------------------------------

Some of the comments in red give a clue in my opinion that Binnie's report is likely to have closely examined a culture of having approached the false imprisonment of David Bain, by both the police and Crown, with a pre-determined 'guilty mindset' that saw evidence, or only sought explanations of evidence that corresponded with that 'guilty mindset.' In other words not only did some of the investigators pre-suppose David's guilt but also did personnel employed by the Crown. This if analysed by Ian Binnie will be a critical watershed in the fair and unfair administration of Justice in New Zealand for it would acknowledge that both police and Crown can be, and are at times, influenced by perceived guilt of a suspect to the point of closing down all other avenues of inquiry, and indeed as happened in the Bain case, 'finding' and 'hiding' evidence to make their case. Of course that presents another concern, a practical one facing the defence teams of Watson and Pora, for example - where a suspect is chosen and his or her guilt manufactured by the treatment of evidence  and evidence which is 'found' after the fact of earlier searches on so on.

Ken Parker presents as someone unconcerned about David's innocence for example, he saw an opportunity to profit from persecuting him. Others, including in the inquiry and the Crown Law office, appear never having been willing to even consider it - I don't know which is worse because both are a modern form of cannibalism where a person if not eaten is destroyed by a culture of empowerment to Judge all others with whim, convenience, indifference or just hate.