Foremost their 'rallying call' for right thinking NZers to sign a petition has failed. 'Right thinking' NZers were going to be falling over themselves to sign the petition and Kent spoke about even starting a political party. They were trolls on a roll, not that they realised that it was down hill and down the dunny.
Melanie White's 'heart felt' call for others to attend a memorial service for Robin Bain was even less successful only herself and a photographer arrived. But no worries - Melanie hadn't expected anyone to come anyway.
A court case continues against Kent and others and although having fought a desperate rear-guard action which culminated in Kent wailing on the steps of the Auckland High Court. He is surrounded on all sides and ready to be dispatched into infamy as his 'loyal' following and those that got in the cart watch. Members have come and gone. Trade Me have tossed them to the side are being forced to settle a case caused by the hate-siters. I suppose it is fair to say they've achieved nothing but that would overlook what they have shown in represented in our society.
After all, they have displayed everything that is bad in a fair and just society. They have lied, consistently and continue to lie. Each is unmoved by others lying apparently, because they are corrupted by 'noble cause.' Each of these individual believe they 'know' something that others don't, something which elevates them in their own minds. Something which also allows the right to break laws and human codes of decency. As example of this I've written about before is their 'rallying calls' for the group to do something. Kent on discovering the opportunity to multi vote on polls on the Bain case encouraged his members to do so and to use multi identities. Their intention of course fraudulent, their justification that they were 'right' and all seeing. The same sort of justification which they used to lay false complaints with the police in order to attempt to remove those that spoke out against them, or whom they couldn't intimidate or simply out reason. The hate-siters have shown a 'gang like' characteristic if you are not for them, then you are against them.
Let's look at who appears to be 'against' them, The Privy Council, a Jury, and more recently Ian Binnie. All groups which have one thing in common, impartiality. So while Karam, Reed and others are certainly not impartial, nor should they be, other who are impartial are treated with equal hatred. Why, because they don't 'agree' with the hate-siters - whether it is that feature alone or not that incenses the hate-siters or if it is a combination of self-doubt, or even self-preservation can probably only be decided in individual cases. So they continue on regardless, 'if you are not for us - then you are the enemy' whether you are a prominent jurist, a law lord, a person in the street with your own mind - then you are a target in the 'us and them' world of the twisted sisters.
They'll try to disrupt your family, say they'll 'take' your children, interfere where they can in your personal life but if you say the apparently simple words 'Robin is innocent' you will be accepted and anything that you do will be accepted. Nobody will say, hold on lets stick to the facts and the truth. Nobody standing beside you will say that something is actually wrong or not true they will simply ignore it and defend any challenges.
Right now JFRB are active with support of some ex police, The Press, The Truth and by all appearances even the Minister of Justice. I've asked previously if the Right Honorable Judith Collins is a hate-siter, not because of her husband being an ex police officer, or herself having been an ex Minister of Police that authorized what is an apparently wasted 10 million dollars on unsuccessfully trying for a fourth or fifth time to turn a murder/suicide into something it wasn't - but rather because of the characteristics she shares with the hate-siters.
First of all, and in common with the hate-siters, she can be presumed to have supported the appointment of Ian Binnie because she was in the cabinet which approved his appointment. However immediately it seems that Binnie made a recommendation which the Minister didn't like she turned on him, right along with the hate-siters with the clear distinction that she was able to launch a public attack against him unprecedented in NZ history. Then, as is common with the hate-siters, invention began. Binnie didn't understand NZ Law, he'd written a report that could lead itself to be scrutinized in Court, possibly invading privacy and civil rights, he'd sent 'unsolicited' follow ups for which he wouldn't be paid - inference he was trying to rip off the Country, he'd overlooked evidence - said not to be in his report but which was. Judith Collins showed no normal deference to the ex judge, just attacked him possibly assuming that he wouldn't reply. So as the hate-siters have treated the Bain Jury, and the Binnie report the Minister joins them in the gutters baying for blood. Maybe somethings just can't be hidden, things like anger or coarseness, an absolute in being right and and all knowing. I guess Judith found a home and hate-siters a 'loving' idol.
Nos,
ReplyDeleteWhat have they achieved so far, 1 PC Judgement, 5 not guilty verdicts, Innocent on BOP decision from the judge and an upcoming defamation suite.
They should probably all start saving for the latter and also the plane tickets to North Korea.
Even with their signed petition all they can get about 2000-3000 signatures from using multiple identities
They have achieved...
ReplyDelete> a forum for the same sort of malicious rabble that you get in all of these sorts of cases. The internet is full of people desperately arguing that people like Lindy Chamberlain and Ruben Carter are guilty: endlessly re-hashing the evidence to 'prove' their point. It's an odd thing, but seems to be very common and to attract the same sort of people: people who think it's their business when it's not, and who have no sense of humility or shame.
> Some notoriety. In official circles they are seen as a collection of uninformed, presumptuous nutters who have to be pacified, and are the object of much derision. But they have provided stories for the muck-raking media, and those of them so tangibly seeking the limelight have had a taste of it.
> unfortunately, some success in their scurrilous attacks on Joe Karam. His reputation has been tainted most undeservedly by their nasty nonsense. They have pilloried a good man who has had the balls, the stamina and the ability to stand up and fight for what he knew was right. Binnie's finding vindicated Karam and shows he was right all along. The nasties dismiss Binnie's report on the basis of some unsupportable criticisms of his report. But that was inevitable: the alternative was some honest reflection and admitting that they had got it wrong.
+++++++++++++++++
Parker is showing signs of doubt. He at least seems to have got some inkling that he has been mislead. If Parker has read Binnie's report in detail and understood it, he will have understood that his access to the 'evidence' was limited and one-sided, that much of the more significant material in support of the defence case was not reported, and that he has waged a campaign on behalf of people who have manipulated and deceived him. I wonder if he has yet realised that this manipulation and deceit extended to his view of Joe Karam?
Wrong to say they have acheived nothing, Ian Binnie familarised himself with all the "facts" from their witchhunt campaign and found David likely innocent on the BOP. Well done to them.
ReplyDeleteThey have apparently achieved the aim of the media and police in terms of getting their interpretation of the evidence into the public consciousness.
ReplyDeleteOn Kiwiblog, 'Psycho Milt' has just posted about the foot prints and the probability of them being Robin's. And he has repeated the tired old biased version, complete with the judge's criticism of the experimental work.
The truth about those footprints is that Hentshell never tried to determine who made them: he tried to confirm David made them. He told Weir they were too big to be Robin's before he knew the sizes of Robin's and David's feet!
The facts are:
> The complete footprints (that included toes and heel) measured 280mm. Hentshell agreed to a margin of error in measurement of +/- 5mm. So that makes them 285mm at the largest.
> Robin's feet were measured at 270mm, and would have been about 275mm when standing on them.
> David's feet were 300mm
> In the experimental work by both the Crown and defence experts, a foot the size of Robin's left footprints on carpet of an average of 280mm.
> David's foot left footprints on carpet of an average of 306mm.
> with the agreed measurement margin of error of 5mm, that means Robin's average was 275 - 285mm; David's was 301 - 311mm.
So which more probably made a print of 280mm as found?
The judge's comment is invalid - the feet that left the luminol footprints had sufficient blood on them to leave complete prints, invisible without luminol. The experimental work had achieved the same.
The question is, and should have been, 'who *more probably* made the footprints', not 'could David have made them' (which presupposes guilt).
Quite simply, David could not have made them. Unbelievably, at the first trial, no work had been done to assess whether Robin was even likely to have made them - the work was all intent on proving they were David's. Michael Guest did not challenge this, instead accepting they were David's prints and arguing there was an innocent explanation for them.
That one piece of evidence excludes David as the killer. It is simple logic to look for evidence that rules someone out, and they didn't do it.
Oh, but they *did* know it was improbable... they had measured the inside of Robin's and David's shoes (275mm & 305mm). They opted to use the measurements of unstretched socks(at 240 and 270mm), instead, as a benchmark for foot size.
Bias. Tunnel vision. Bad science. A failure by the criminal justice system.