Kent Parker is very predictable and taken to acting and speaking rashly. Some will recall that Parker first blogged about a 'settlement conference' due in May as something of a victory. He portrayed it as the 'first time' that Joe Karam was finally showing some responsibility regarding the defamation charges brought by him against Parker and Purkiss. Indeed Parker had convinced himself that it might be 'all over Rover' and that his position, multi-positional as it has been, was vindicated. That Joe had perhaps recognised the validity of 'free speech' on an important case and so on as Kent prefers to delude himself.
A more experienced campaigner than Parker, someone with more smarts, could have realised that the case against Parker is very strong and that any negotiations toward a settlement would necessarily reflect that. A more experienced campaigner, realising that they'd been on the back foot through out, would have sought to make some advantage from the opportunity - made a range of offers, that at least could be used later to show a willingness to appease the plaintiff's position. But Parker has faced these solutions for 3 years and each time turned away from them and become more firmly mired in his own trap. None of us should forget that Parker had a cease and desist letter which he ignored, and after which he continued to defame Karam. He didn't have the good sense to change tack even when confronted by the first step of the proceedings that were potentially about to be brought against him if he didn't stop. He had a chorus of idiots chirping in the back ground about what Karam 'wouldn't dare do, because we get the chance to re-try David' and other such nonsense from another planet.
Parker could not pause, perhaps he has some psychological difficult that prevents him from comprehending reality, whatever, something causes him to walk the wrong way against arrows of direction. Something which is certainly a delusion of some sort. So he has never been able try and cut his losses, despite having had fair warning to stop. So, on what do I speculate that the preparations for the conference are not going well? An outburst from his Lordship that once again rails against Joe Karam. What clearer sign could there possibly be but an 'opinion' piece that attacks Karam in conjunction to the Legal Aid costs recently published? I imagine that Parker has been offered the chance to publish a full and frank apology, to meet costs to date and another amount for the damage inflicted upon Joe's international reputation - a fully warranted and reasonable set of conditions. Conditions likely to be viewed by any potential Jury as further evidence of the aggravation and public humiliation that Parker and Purkiss has sought to bring upon Joe Karam even after proceedings were commenced.
As the message sinks into some of Parker's former 'supporters' that David is in fact innocent, and that "Trial by Ambush" establishes that without question, he loses more support. But even to this point he does not seem capable of accepting that his various comments against Joe Karam could never be sustained as fact or informed opinion, and that is why the settlement process is so unpalatable to Parker. One could ask doesn't Parker get anything? Is he so far gone that he can't follow simple facts and processes that have obvious and predictable outcomes, the answer is no. An absolute no. That being the reason why his support case has simply evaporated apart from a few sickoes characterised by their hate and psychopathy.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
What broke Jumbo's heart?
First of all I'll give Jumbo back her name. She was renamed to help put her past away, she became Mila the captive of the RSPCA and the trophy of Hans Kriek from an animal's rights group who along with others hounded the ex circus elephant into captivity with the unshakeable belief that she was better in their care than that of her former owner Tony Ratcliffe.
Tony is of another time, not that far away, a showman, a big man with a big heart and friend of Jumbo for 30 years. It is said even by 'opponents' of Tony that he is the only man that can handle the african elephant taking her to the circus ring unshackled and unbowed for 10s of thousand of Kiwi children to enjoy. Tony had dealt with elephants for 40 years, had even been a zoo keeper.
By all accounts Hans Krieks mob were offended beyond all reason that Jumbo could be a circus elephant to be enjoyed by crowds that wanted to see her. It didn't fit with their ideals of a perfect world where an old man and a elephant could co-exist on their own terms. An elephant which showed no aggression and upon which Tony could turn his back to Jumbo and stand under her head in an ultimate expression of his faith in the elephant that he toured the country with. The objectors had many reasons to complain in their minds, Tony was a dinosaur from another age and Jumbo needed her 'freedom.' It doesn't seem that at any point Jumbo's captors could allow the possibility that Jumbo and the old zoo keeper were one, and in reliance of one another. The captors couldn't see or think of that, nor could they consider what they would do once that had been 'successful' in splitting the old team up.
Split them they did, after what seems more like a modern day hounding Tony bowed his head and said enough. What followed wasn't an escape for Jumbo into freedom but rather a long mourning for the man that so trusted and loved her. She first grazed in paddocks and then went to the Franklin zoo and ultimately into the care of Helen Schofield who ran, by all accounts, under extreme financial pressure, a home for animals and birds. I don't know accurate it is, but my own observations of the zoo when I visited there a month or so ago, was that it was run down. I'll just make that clear, the zoo was struggling financially, Bob Kerridge and Hans Kriek, along with their objections to Tony Ratcliffe, had effectively constructed a new life for Jumbo where her behaviour deteriorated, and where one could say, she perhaps pined for the gruff old bastard who'd been her mate for decades.
It seems the rift was effectively a rejection of Tony to the point that was more important that the elephants welfare. Jumbo, renamed by then, was cared for by specialists for a time until money got tight. I don't know how Hans Kriek or Bob Kerridge viewed that situation or what they did about it, but it was clear one view could be that they passed the 'problem' along to someone that couldn't cope. Below all of this however, resides that the bitterness toward Tony presided somewhere near the top.
Two days ago Jumbo killed Helen Schofield, shortly after a talk in which she admitted that the elephants behaviour had continued to deteriorate, expressing how Jumbo was better off than in her former life where to all or most, she appeared happy. One of the first to the Zoo was the old trainer, but he wasn't allow entry. Soon Hans Kriek spoke out against him, along with the RSPCA. They reiterated the dream that it was hoped, money permitting, Jumbo would be sent to an idyllic life in America where only the fully informed could appreciate she'd be 'happy.' They seemed removed from the reality that Jumbo had been twice already 'moved' and that something was missing her in life that America had no guarantee of providing.
Could it be simply, that Jumbo is broken hearted. That she misses an old man who still speaks of his love for her and that for all things, qualities and feelings, we know animals do possess that the truth is looking at us through sad eyes and bewilderment.
Tony is of another time, not that far away, a showman, a big man with a big heart and friend of Jumbo for 30 years. It is said even by 'opponents' of Tony that he is the only man that can handle the african elephant taking her to the circus ring unshackled and unbowed for 10s of thousand of Kiwi children to enjoy. Tony had dealt with elephants for 40 years, had even been a zoo keeper.
By all accounts Hans Krieks mob were offended beyond all reason that Jumbo could be a circus elephant to be enjoyed by crowds that wanted to see her. It didn't fit with their ideals of a perfect world where an old man and a elephant could co-exist on their own terms. An elephant which showed no aggression and upon which Tony could turn his back to Jumbo and stand under her head in an ultimate expression of his faith in the elephant that he toured the country with. The objectors had many reasons to complain in their minds, Tony was a dinosaur from another age and Jumbo needed her 'freedom.' It doesn't seem that at any point Jumbo's captors could allow the possibility that Jumbo and the old zoo keeper were one, and in reliance of one another. The captors couldn't see or think of that, nor could they consider what they would do once that had been 'successful' in splitting the old team up.
Split them they did, after what seems more like a modern day hounding Tony bowed his head and said enough. What followed wasn't an escape for Jumbo into freedom but rather a long mourning for the man that so trusted and loved her. She first grazed in paddocks and then went to the Franklin zoo and ultimately into the care of Helen Schofield who ran, by all accounts, under extreme financial pressure, a home for animals and birds. I don't know accurate it is, but my own observations of the zoo when I visited there a month or so ago, was that it was run down. I'll just make that clear, the zoo was struggling financially, Bob Kerridge and Hans Kriek, along with their objections to Tony Ratcliffe, had effectively constructed a new life for Jumbo where her behaviour deteriorated, and where one could say, she perhaps pined for the gruff old bastard who'd been her mate for decades.
It seems the rift was effectively a rejection of Tony to the point that was more important that the elephants welfare. Jumbo, renamed by then, was cared for by specialists for a time until money got tight. I don't know how Hans Kriek or Bob Kerridge viewed that situation or what they did about it, but it was clear one view could be that they passed the 'problem' along to someone that couldn't cope. Below all of this however, resides that the bitterness toward Tony presided somewhere near the top.
Two days ago Jumbo killed Helen Schofield, shortly after a talk in which she admitted that the elephants behaviour had continued to deteriorate, expressing how Jumbo was better off than in her former life where to all or most, she appeared happy. One of the first to the Zoo was the old trainer, but he wasn't allow entry. Soon Hans Kriek spoke out against him, along with the RSPCA. They reiterated the dream that it was hoped, money permitting, Jumbo would be sent to an idyllic life in America where only the fully informed could appreciate she'd be 'happy.' They seemed removed from the reality that Jumbo had been twice already 'moved' and that something was missing her in life that America had no guarantee of providing.
Could it be simply, that Jumbo is broken hearted. That she misses an old man who still speaks of his love for her and that for all things, qualities and feelings, we know animals do possess that the truth is looking at us through sad eyes and bewilderment.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The Bain case: another seed of deceit.
In so much as the Bain saga was played out in the media from the very beginning, very much a conditioning of the public mood to ensure that David was convicted and stayed convicted.
Think of some of the clichés that have proven to be false:
David's fingerprints on the gun in blood.
The use of the paper run as an 'alibi.'
The scratches David got from the massive fight with Stephen.
All the sinister connotations of his deja vu experiences that we now know to be common among young men.
That 'who ever heard the gurgling of Laniet was the killer.'
And the list goes laboriously on, one false fact after another, one insinuation presented with support from another.
Then think of what we didn't hear:
Robin had blood smears on his hands.
Robin's blood was found inside the rifle.
Robin's hands were bruised and bloody.
David was not home when the computer was turned on.
That Robin had been a firearm user all his life.
That Robin's footprints were found in the murder scene.
That the glasses said to be David's were in fact an old pair of his mothers.
Another list which goes on at length until we invariably reach the 'reliable' mantra Robin was the suspect, then later suspicion fell upon David. What a thoroughly convenient message from the investigators. Something which allowed the public to think that police thoroughly investigated the possibility that Robin was killer, were able to disprove that and turned their attention to the 'right' person, David. The very thought of this was a comfort I imagine for some, that the right person was arrested and charged despite the unprecedented circumstances of a crime of this nature of which the son was the killer.
But this 'story' of the 'thorough' investigation into Robin is pure fiction, a deliberate lie. Over the years people have realised that the allegations of incest, and therefore a motive, against Robin were never investigated. Put by ex DS Doyle as they (the investigators) had no time for that because they 'had a murder to solve.' The same man would later agree that the thorough investigation did not include samples of the blood taken from Robin's hands even being tested despite the 'extensive' scrutiny of him as the main suspect.
Often in the Bain case the real truth was hidden by a lie, one of those was the 'strip search' which allegedly uncovered scratches on David's chest. This assertion was later covered over by another lie in the public forum, that no strip search happened because David 'wasn't' a suspect. Well, now we know a strip search was conducted, the results recorded on a serialised form and handed to ex DS Doyle showing that David had no scratches on his chest the morning of the killings - but the 'scratches' were long celebrated right up until now by some of the seriously bewildered.
I always wanted to know if the 'main' first suspect's body was also searched for bruises and if, as one would presume, intimate tests made on his body to determine if he'd recently had sex for example. He was after all the 'main' suspect, the one found on the ground with a rifle nearby that suggested suicide but no, now I discover no such tests were conducted on the body of Robin Bain - proving to be one of the biggest lies of all that he, Robin, was ever considered a suspect and his body treated in such a way to search for the forensic evidence that would have helped solve the crime.
How could a police investigation so poorly staged, one that overlooked all normal investigation procedures result in a Miscarriage of Justice if not every facet of it, as we now see, wasn't corrupted by an effort from somewhere near the outset to frame David Bain? Might this explain why the police pathologist Dr Dempster was kept waiting outside the scene for many hours, and might this also explain the continued disappearance of Laniet's electronic diary that was said to contain the names of some of her clients. What could have held up a serious police investigation for hours, where one of the senior forensic experts critical to the investigation was kept away, where normal and known procedures weren't followed, unless it was an order from senior police who it can also be assumed steered the investigation away from the 'main' suspect.?
Going further along this line. If, and once, the diary was recovered weren't those that might have been named in there safe? Presumably yes. So what could have been the motivation to 'protect' the memory of Robin and falsely imprison his son? Why do others that know these answers not reveal them, why have they gone to such lengths to pervert the course of Justice.
Think of some of the clichés that have proven to be false:
David's fingerprints on the gun in blood.
The use of the paper run as an 'alibi.'
The scratches David got from the massive fight with Stephen.
All the sinister connotations of his deja vu experiences that we now know to be common among young men.
That 'who ever heard the gurgling of Laniet was the killer.'
And the list goes laboriously on, one false fact after another, one insinuation presented with support from another.
Then think of what we didn't hear:
Robin had blood smears on his hands.
Robin's blood was found inside the rifle.
Robin's hands were bruised and bloody.
David was not home when the computer was turned on.
That Robin had been a firearm user all his life.
That Robin's footprints were found in the murder scene.
That the glasses said to be David's were in fact an old pair of his mothers.
Another list which goes on at length until we invariably reach the 'reliable' mantra Robin was the suspect, then later suspicion fell upon David. What a thoroughly convenient message from the investigators. Something which allowed the public to think that police thoroughly investigated the possibility that Robin was killer, were able to disprove that and turned their attention to the 'right' person, David. The very thought of this was a comfort I imagine for some, that the right person was arrested and charged despite the unprecedented circumstances of a crime of this nature of which the son was the killer.
But this 'story' of the 'thorough' investigation into Robin is pure fiction, a deliberate lie. Over the years people have realised that the allegations of incest, and therefore a motive, against Robin were never investigated. Put by ex DS Doyle as they (the investigators) had no time for that because they 'had a murder to solve.' The same man would later agree that the thorough investigation did not include samples of the blood taken from Robin's hands even being tested despite the 'extensive' scrutiny of him as the main suspect.
Often in the Bain case the real truth was hidden by a lie, one of those was the 'strip search' which allegedly uncovered scratches on David's chest. This assertion was later covered over by another lie in the public forum, that no strip search happened because David 'wasn't' a suspect. Well, now we know a strip search was conducted, the results recorded on a serialised form and handed to ex DS Doyle showing that David had no scratches on his chest the morning of the killings - but the 'scratches' were long celebrated right up until now by some of the seriously bewildered.
I always wanted to know if the 'main' first suspect's body was also searched for bruises and if, as one would presume, intimate tests made on his body to determine if he'd recently had sex for example. He was after all the 'main' suspect, the one found on the ground with a rifle nearby that suggested suicide but no, now I discover no such tests were conducted on the body of Robin Bain - proving to be one of the biggest lies of all that he, Robin, was ever considered a suspect and his body treated in such a way to search for the forensic evidence that would have helped solve the crime.
How could a police investigation so poorly staged, one that overlooked all normal investigation procedures result in a Miscarriage of Justice if not every facet of it, as we now see, wasn't corrupted by an effort from somewhere near the outset to frame David Bain? Might this explain why the police pathologist Dr Dempster was kept waiting outside the scene for many hours, and might this also explain the continued disappearance of Laniet's electronic diary that was said to contain the names of some of her clients. What could have held up a serious police investigation for hours, where one of the senior forensic experts critical to the investigation was kept away, where normal and known procedures weren't followed, unless it was an order from senior police who it can also be assumed steered the investigation away from the 'main' suspect.?
Going further along this line. If, and once, the diary was recovered weren't those that might have been named in there safe? Presumably yes. So what could have been the motivation to 'protect' the memory of Robin and falsely imprison his son? Why do others that know these answers not reveal them, why have they gone to such lengths to pervert the course of Justice.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
That hate-siters: the biggest fail so far.
People will recall when the hate-siters were celebrating a petition that was going to reach 20,000 signatures against David Bain being paid compensation, also the congratulatory forecasts that David wouldn't even 'dare' apply for compensation. At around the same time was the praising of an anticipated book by former Detective Weir who knew 'everything' about the case and taunts mocking Joe Karam's failure to write a promised book on the successful retrial.
The idea of the petition has come and gone without any progress being made, David has indeed applied for compensation, Weir's book has been put off so many times, apparently for legal reasons, that we may never see it. While of course 'Trial by Ambush' Karam's book has been published. In the 3 months or so since publication not one issue has been made about the contents of the book, not one commentator or reviewer has been able to sustain any negative aspect about the validity of the book. Yes, there have been some comment but only to do with writing style, and the way the book moves forward and back in time. As to the former, the writing style has been criticised as scholarly or reading like a lawyer was the author. That observation in itself, and I believe Paul Holmes was critical of it in that way and how long it took to write, totally overlooks that Karam is seeped in 'legalise' and has been for nearly two decades. He should in fact be considered for an Honorary Doctorate in Law such has been his contribution to Justice in NZ. Perhaps Joe might have been able to adopt a more casual over the fence type voice but that wouldn't have altered the most important thing - the content of the book that showed David as innocent and Robin as guilty.
I wasn't distracted by the choice of voice at all and any critic would not the subject matter, a familicide, hardly be discussion at the breakfast table stuff in anyway. As for the time it took to produce, more nonsense, when considering the in depth information canvassed, also the likely reason for the need to transverse forward and backing with time. Overall, there will likely be other books written about the Bain tragedy and they will without exception use 'Trial by Ambush' as main source material because apart from the extensive trial transcript there is no more comprehensive source of information about the Every Street massacre. But my interest was first to read the book, perhaps looking for flaws in the narrative, but to then wait for criticism as to its factual authenticity and there is none, nor do I think there will ever be that stands scrutiny.
Looking into the hate-sites recently, and this just shows how backward they and their members are, discussion still centres around whether or not David was stripped searched the day of the murders. Yes, approaching 16 years after the fact, and with no evidence to the contrary from the trial transcript, the hate-siters cannot accept that David was strip searched and no scratches were found on his chest - one of aged claims to prove his guilt. I wonder whey it is necessary to disregard the truth when forming an opinion, possibly only because the truth in the Bain case is that a innocent man was falsely imprisoned and when freed became the target of hate-groups. It's boggling to some degree that anybody can hold a view that his not sustained by fact, and then publicly vilify somebody using lies. It's shameful that it happens in NZ, not that people have opinions but that some people (a small few thankfully) use lies and to persecute a victim of injustice. That view is compounded because the hate-siters have had access to the book for 3 months, but none can challenge the truth of it - yet that doesn't turn them away from their cause. I do admit however that it is clear the book has rattled them, right up to their demi-god Martin Van Beynan who is exposed now for what he didn't report to the public in being at the trial 'for almost every minute.'
Before closing, I repeat that I believe ex DC Weir could write a very interesting book on the Bain case. Particularly if he chose to be up front about the truth of the investigation, why Robin wasn't investigated, what happened to Laniet's diary, who might have been seen to have had things to lose if Robin was investigated or the full extent of Laniet's clients were known. The point really now is that is the real hidden story, but not so hidden that it is unknown, but more to the extent that it hasn't been written frankly about by one, or some of those involved. It seems to me that there was a lot of embarrassment saved some members of the Dunedin police by the fact Robin was investigated, and if that's not the case - let's here the truth, before the Bain case drifts off into the land where Arthur Thomas found himself and where his ex wife Vivian arrived and was unable to leave right to the point of her recent death.
As for the title of 'Trial by Ambush,' although it might not have been intended, clearly the 'ambush' of the truth on the unsuspecting police and Crown in the retrial was unprecedented in NZ history. We discovered a veritable horror story, just one example now: the question to David 'can you explain how your fingerprints were found on the rifle in blood.' When the truth is they were never found in blood and an innocent man was being asked to explain something that hadn't happened, only to be criticised for it at a trial where false evidence of blood was offered. That's the story I want to know now, why ex DS Doyle allowed the inquiry to be steered away from Robin completely while David was beset with false evidence and asked to disprove it. The book answered a lot of my question, and while I know there has been a lot evidence suppressed about Robin, which I imagine David, has not sought to have revealed - but I would still like to know if Robin was subjected to the same invasive tests, that were performed on his son, while Robin lay dead on the ground without underwear and what the results of those test were if taken.
The idea of the petition has come and gone without any progress being made, David has indeed applied for compensation, Weir's book has been put off so many times, apparently for legal reasons, that we may never see it. While of course 'Trial by Ambush' Karam's book has been published. In the 3 months or so since publication not one issue has been made about the contents of the book, not one commentator or reviewer has been able to sustain any negative aspect about the validity of the book. Yes, there have been some comment but only to do with writing style, and the way the book moves forward and back in time. As to the former, the writing style has been criticised as scholarly or reading like a lawyer was the author. That observation in itself, and I believe Paul Holmes was critical of it in that way and how long it took to write, totally overlooks that Karam is seeped in 'legalise' and has been for nearly two decades. He should in fact be considered for an Honorary Doctorate in Law such has been his contribution to Justice in NZ. Perhaps Joe might have been able to adopt a more casual over the fence type voice but that wouldn't have altered the most important thing - the content of the book that showed David as innocent and Robin as guilty.
I wasn't distracted by the choice of voice at all and any critic would not the subject matter, a familicide, hardly be discussion at the breakfast table stuff in anyway. As for the time it took to produce, more nonsense, when considering the in depth information canvassed, also the likely reason for the need to transverse forward and backing with time. Overall, there will likely be other books written about the Bain tragedy and they will without exception use 'Trial by Ambush' as main source material because apart from the extensive trial transcript there is no more comprehensive source of information about the Every Street massacre. But my interest was first to read the book, perhaps looking for flaws in the narrative, but to then wait for criticism as to its factual authenticity and there is none, nor do I think there will ever be that stands scrutiny.
Looking into the hate-sites recently, and this just shows how backward they and their members are, discussion still centres around whether or not David was stripped searched the day of the murders. Yes, approaching 16 years after the fact, and with no evidence to the contrary from the trial transcript, the hate-siters cannot accept that David was strip searched and no scratches were found on his chest - one of aged claims to prove his guilt. I wonder whey it is necessary to disregard the truth when forming an opinion, possibly only because the truth in the Bain case is that a innocent man was falsely imprisoned and when freed became the target of hate-groups. It's boggling to some degree that anybody can hold a view that his not sustained by fact, and then publicly vilify somebody using lies. It's shameful that it happens in NZ, not that people have opinions but that some people (a small few thankfully) use lies and to persecute a victim of injustice. That view is compounded because the hate-siters have had access to the book for 3 months, but none can challenge the truth of it - yet that doesn't turn them away from their cause. I do admit however that it is clear the book has rattled them, right up to their demi-god Martin Van Beynan who is exposed now for what he didn't report to the public in being at the trial 'for almost every minute.'
Before closing, I repeat that I believe ex DC Weir could write a very interesting book on the Bain case. Particularly if he chose to be up front about the truth of the investigation, why Robin wasn't investigated, what happened to Laniet's diary, who might have been seen to have had things to lose if Robin was investigated or the full extent of Laniet's clients were known. The point really now is that is the real hidden story, but not so hidden that it is unknown, but more to the extent that it hasn't been written frankly about by one, or some of those involved. It seems to me that there was a lot of embarrassment saved some members of the Dunedin police by the fact Robin was investigated, and if that's not the case - let's here the truth, before the Bain case drifts off into the land where Arthur Thomas found himself and where his ex wife Vivian arrived and was unable to leave right to the point of her recent death.
As for the title of 'Trial by Ambush,' although it might not have been intended, clearly the 'ambush' of the truth on the unsuspecting police and Crown in the retrial was unprecedented in NZ history. We discovered a veritable horror story, just one example now: the question to David 'can you explain how your fingerprints were found on the rifle in blood.' When the truth is they were never found in blood and an innocent man was being asked to explain something that hadn't happened, only to be criticised for it at a trial where false evidence of blood was offered. That's the story I want to know now, why ex DS Doyle allowed the inquiry to be steered away from Robin completely while David was beset with false evidence and asked to disprove it. The book answered a lot of my question, and while I know there has been a lot evidence suppressed about Robin, which I imagine David, has not sought to have revealed - but I would still like to know if Robin was subjected to the same invasive tests, that were performed on his son, while Robin lay dead on the ground without underwear and what the results of those test were if taken.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
When the Crown case against David Bain failed.
Joe Karam says in his recently published book that the trial was essentially all over at the completion of the evidence and cross examination of ex detective Sergeant Doyle early in the trial. Doyle was effectively in charge of the investigation, the hands on man. The man who said they hadn't investigated the motives given by witnesses as to why Robin was the killer because they had a 'murder case to solve.' Clearly his enlightened view was that in the case of 2 likely suspects, one who for all appearances had suicided, there was no point in investigating allegations against the deceased Robin Bain and that accordingly all evidence and possible evidence against Robin should be ignored. Copy book investigation? Hardly.
However, if it wasn't during the cross examination of Doyle and his subsequent revelation of the 15 year old evidence of the deceased police Doctor Pryde, that when David was strip searched and subjected to invasive personal tests - during which no scratches were found on David's chest - then the other likely time of the Trial being seen as having only one possible result was when the Crown conceded that Robin might have turned the computer on which recorded his final communication to the world. That concession had been 15 long years in the making, almost everything possible had been done to avoid the truth, Mrs Laney's evidence not properly presented to the 1st trial that she had seen David entering the gate at 7.45, 5 minutes after it was also finally, truthfully, determined that the computer had been turned on despite the police officer present, DC Anderson, not reporting to the Court that his watch was 2 minutes slow because 'no one asked him.' Despite also the evidence of the police computer expert, Klientjes that his 'theory' on when the computer had been switched on had no definitive finishing point in time - that it was in other words, guess work dressed up to suit the Crown's case. He was calculating the length of a piece of string that couldn't be proved by fact but only by his imagination. But before looking at that concession by the Crown further it's worth noting two other major events before the trial where the Crown ought to have not continued with the retrial.
The first of those would be the Privy Council decision that dismembered the Judgement of our Appeal Court in a fashion unprecedented in NZ history apart from the analysis of the Thomas case at the Commission of Inquiry and that of Peter Mahon into the cover up of the Erebus plane crash. The second, would be in my opinion, the letter to by the retired Police Pathologist Doctor Dempster who offered his thoughts on why the intention of having a re-trial was questionable. We now know from 'Trial by Ambush' that Dempster's superior Dr Gywnne had been troubled for years by how a kid could achieve the appearance of a suicide so perfectly, something that didn't fit into the expectation of his scientist's mind. We can well imagine the 2 men discussing it with some dismay over the years as David never lay down and 'died' by admitting a 'truth' that may have relieved both men that the conviction of David Bain was indeed not a miscarriage of justice. Both of these events were of course pre-trial and leaving intact Karam's claim that the it was the evidence of Doyle that shook the Crown case to bits.
Pause for a moment and think about Dempster and his boss Dr Gywnne, consider what drove them overall and compare them with for example Klentjies, the police computer expert, who sought to stretch the possible computer turn on time and half it for a mid point, that happened to suit the Crown case that David had turned the computer on. Klentjies used a theory on which to base his calculation which fixed as one of its determinates an impossibility:
Q. No, no Mr Kleintjes, your mid point is based upon one extreme being an impossibility, you've agreed with that? Yes? Can you say yes to that or no?
A. Yes it is.
It could be judged that Drs Dempster and Gywnne were intent on finding the truth and giving the correct evidence, while an observer could easily consider Kleintjes was intent on moving forward the computer time to the extreme of using what engineers and mechanics fooled 1st year apprentices with by sending them to the machine shop or tool store to gather a 'sky' hook.
So after 15 years of diversion it was the Crown's time to concede that the father could have turned on the computer and as in law 'could have' was an exclusion in the Crown case that David had turned on the computer and written the suicide 'note.' But think what else the Crown were conceding, the overall case in fact, but in finer detail: that the gurgling of Laniet, on which the Crown held its false case for so long, must have been occurring before David arrived home while Robin was in the house, hands blood smeared and knowing his life was already gone, his persistence in writing a note to his oldest son, clearing the rifle of a misfeed with nervous hands knowing he must be quick in killing himself to hide his crimes that the police would never examine.
Why was Robin never investigated. The answer from Doyle was a pathetic misrepresentation of the duties of any police force in the world. Why was Dempster kept out of the house for long hours while inexperienced cops trudged through the evidence, why were his early opinions ignored by 'experienced' police officers who had never dealt with such a case before, why was even the training of those officers about offender's hands overlooked, completely overlooked?
However, if it wasn't during the cross examination of Doyle and his subsequent revelation of the 15 year old evidence of the deceased police Doctor Pryde, that when David was strip searched and subjected to invasive personal tests - during which no scratches were found on David's chest - then the other likely time of the Trial being seen as having only one possible result was when the Crown conceded that Robin might have turned the computer on which recorded his final communication to the world. That concession had been 15 long years in the making, almost everything possible had been done to avoid the truth, Mrs Laney's evidence not properly presented to the 1st trial that she had seen David entering the gate at 7.45, 5 minutes after it was also finally, truthfully, determined that the computer had been turned on despite the police officer present, DC Anderson, not reporting to the Court that his watch was 2 minutes slow because 'no one asked him.' Despite also the evidence of the police computer expert, Klientjes that his 'theory' on when the computer had been switched on had no definitive finishing point in time - that it was in other words, guess work dressed up to suit the Crown's case. He was calculating the length of a piece of string that couldn't be proved by fact but only by his imagination. But before looking at that concession by the Crown further it's worth noting two other major events before the trial where the Crown ought to have not continued with the retrial.
The first of those would be the Privy Council decision that dismembered the Judgement of our Appeal Court in a fashion unprecedented in NZ history apart from the analysis of the Thomas case at the Commission of Inquiry and that of Peter Mahon into the cover up of the Erebus plane crash. The second, would be in my opinion, the letter to by the retired Police Pathologist Doctor Dempster who offered his thoughts on why the intention of having a re-trial was questionable. We now know from 'Trial by Ambush' that Dempster's superior Dr Gywnne had been troubled for years by how a kid could achieve the appearance of a suicide so perfectly, something that didn't fit into the expectation of his scientist's mind. We can well imagine the 2 men discussing it with some dismay over the years as David never lay down and 'died' by admitting a 'truth' that may have relieved both men that the conviction of David Bain was indeed not a miscarriage of justice. Both of these events were of course pre-trial and leaving intact Karam's claim that the it was the evidence of Doyle that shook the Crown case to bits.
Pause for a moment and think about Dempster and his boss Dr Gywnne, consider what drove them overall and compare them with for example Klentjies, the police computer expert, who sought to stretch the possible computer turn on time and half it for a mid point, that happened to suit the Crown case that David had turned the computer on. Klentjies used a theory on which to base his calculation which fixed as one of its determinates an impossibility:
Q. No, no Mr Kleintjes, your mid point is based upon one extreme being an impossibility, you've agreed with that? Yes? Can you say yes to that or no?
A. Yes it is.
It could be judged that Drs Dempster and Gywnne were intent on finding the truth and giving the correct evidence, while an observer could easily consider Kleintjes was intent on moving forward the computer time to the extreme of using what engineers and mechanics fooled 1st year apprentices with by sending them to the machine shop or tool store to gather a 'sky' hook.
So after 15 years of diversion it was the Crown's time to concede that the father could have turned on the computer and as in law 'could have' was an exclusion in the Crown case that David had turned on the computer and written the suicide 'note.' But think what else the Crown were conceding, the overall case in fact, but in finer detail: that the gurgling of Laniet, on which the Crown held its false case for so long, must have been occurring before David arrived home while Robin was in the house, hands blood smeared and knowing his life was already gone, his persistence in writing a note to his oldest son, clearing the rifle of a misfeed with nervous hands knowing he must be quick in killing himself to hide his crimes that the police would never examine.
Why was Robin never investigated. The answer from Doyle was a pathetic misrepresentation of the duties of any police force in the world. Why was Dempster kept out of the house for long hours while inexperienced cops trudged through the evidence, why were his early opinions ignored by 'experienced' police officers who had never dealt with such a case before, why was even the training of those officers about offender's hands overlooked, completely overlooked?
Sunday, April 1, 2012
If it quacks like a duck - it's probably Kent Parker.
Kent's quacking again, it might be something to do with easter and he's not sure if he's a bunny or not. One thing I've always found weird about the hate-siters is the way they keep changing things, it's sort of like a tennis game in a spirited rally with the ball going back and forth but in the case of the hate-siters, and in Kent's case in particular it's 'I won't be going to court with that man' followed by 'I'm looking forward to the Court case,' followed by 'We are applying to get the suit struck out,' followed by 'Karam wants to settle,' and now the latest variation of a similar shot that hit the net earlier 'probably the best way to lay the Bain case to rest now is for the defamation proceedings [abridged] to got to trial.'
Will Kent ever get the picture? No, he won't. He still fails to understand his 'sudden' goal of having a trial to lay the Bain case 'to rest' relies on him finally getting a defence together, a hurdle or net on which he has thus far stumbled twice already. Most people almost 2 years down the track would understand the proceedings against them and what the options and outcomes might be. But not Kent, in his latest effort he thinks it's going to 'Bain trial 3' with him the starring role of Hannibal Lector. Well, if he gets there and the doubts are high that he has sufficient defence to warrant a trial the trial is going to be about what he published, his intentions and the damage of those publications to the plaintiff Joe Karam. The High Court is not going to suddenly get excited and declare that Auckland has never had a Bain trial before - 'so let's have one now.'
Kent thinks that defamation gets complicated by international borders, and that plaintiffs chose jurisdictions most suited for the plaintiff to succeed in any given case where it might have crossed borders. Kent seems to fail to understand he's sued in New Zealand for material which was published in New Zealand, and while the Court might be asked to take on the broader picture, that Mr Karam does have an international reputation that was and continues to be blemished, for increased financial appeasement the case is however being prosecuted in the correct jurisdiction.
Kent still refers to his case as 'the people v Joe Karam' in an almost forlorn way because apparently he doesn't want to be on his lonesome with a sidekick, Vic Purkiss who is very nervous - suspecting I think that Kent's rambling and best efforts so far have only led toward disaster. I hope one day Kent will understand even the first line of the writ filed against him and that the 'people' are only those that populate his many personalities.
Kent, in normal ping pong practice trots out another line (concession of guilt) that the audience was very small, he seems to forget that his boasts of how big his audience is were recorded. But even that aside he should have perhaps noted that Chris Cairns sued successfully for a tweet that was read by less than 70 people. Also, in his memory loss, Kent forgets that he himself has linked to his sites as part of a plan to 'get Karam.' I guess Kent just hopes everything he ever did, or encouraged others to do will be forgotten about just like he expects bunny rabbits to bring easter eggs in a few days.
He completes his fantasy by hoping he gets a full trial in the 'full blaze' of the media spot light with 'reporting cranked to full volume.' He's probably right on that to some degree, if it is ever held he has defence, because he has become something of an oddity and it will be interesting when he demands to plead not guilty to the Bain killings because after all he is, in his mind, going to be the central part of Bain 3.
Will Kent ever get the picture? No, he won't. He still fails to understand his 'sudden' goal of having a trial to lay the Bain case 'to rest' relies on him finally getting a defence together, a hurdle or net on which he has thus far stumbled twice already. Most people almost 2 years down the track would understand the proceedings against them and what the options and outcomes might be. But not Kent, in his latest effort he thinks it's going to 'Bain trial 3' with him the starring role of Hannibal Lector. Well, if he gets there and the doubts are high that he has sufficient defence to warrant a trial the trial is going to be about what he published, his intentions and the damage of those publications to the plaintiff Joe Karam. The High Court is not going to suddenly get excited and declare that Auckland has never had a Bain trial before - 'so let's have one now.'
Kent thinks that defamation gets complicated by international borders, and that plaintiffs chose jurisdictions most suited for the plaintiff to succeed in any given case where it might have crossed borders. Kent seems to fail to understand he's sued in New Zealand for material which was published in New Zealand, and while the Court might be asked to take on the broader picture, that Mr Karam does have an international reputation that was and continues to be blemished, for increased financial appeasement the case is however being prosecuted in the correct jurisdiction.
Kent still refers to his case as 'the people v Joe Karam' in an almost forlorn way because apparently he doesn't want to be on his lonesome with a sidekick, Vic Purkiss who is very nervous - suspecting I think that Kent's rambling and best efforts so far have only led toward disaster. I hope one day Kent will understand even the first line of the writ filed against him and that the 'people' are only those that populate his many personalities.
Kent, in normal ping pong practice trots out another line (concession of guilt) that the audience was very small, he seems to forget that his boasts of how big his audience is were recorded. But even that aside he should have perhaps noted that Chris Cairns sued successfully for a tweet that was read by less than 70 people. Also, in his memory loss, Kent forgets that he himself has linked to his sites as part of a plan to 'get Karam.' I guess Kent just hopes everything he ever did, or encouraged others to do will be forgotten about just like he expects bunny rabbits to bring easter eggs in a few days.
He completes his fantasy by hoping he gets a full trial in the 'full blaze' of the media spot light with 'reporting cranked to full volume.' He's probably right on that to some degree, if it is ever held he has defence, because he has become something of an oddity and it will be interesting when he demands to plead not guilty to the Bain killings because after all he is, in his mind, going to be the central part of Bain 3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)