Tuesday, March 10, 2015

The Bain case, lost at the bookshop.

There had been less that subtle bragging from the hate-siters that there was a new book on the way that would, yes of course, ensure that David Bain's compensation claim failed. Sort of ho hum prediction by the normal folk desperate for any advantage which might see them gain credibility or save a little face. Many readers will know that the sisters predictions have a dismal record of becoming reality, not least because they obsess over things that are of no value in deciding whether DB may be found innocent on the balance of probabilities a second time. Over time they have exposed a remarkable ability to shoot themselves in the foot because they are absorbed in their own lies with no apparent consciousness that others simply don't believe them no matter how many times they are 'told.' As it transpires the 'book' wasn't so much a shot in the foot but rather a double amputation.

Indeed the bragging was correct, a book was self published and titled 'The Bain Killings Whodunnit.' The 'whodunnit' a sure indication of the author's identity and if the rumours were not certain enough to guess what the books 'slant' would be the author and his or her friends certainly let the cat out of the bag as quickly as a 9 year old sworn to keep the secret of what a sibling's Christmas present was. To say there were major celebrations isn't an exaggeration along with a particular, smug silence as to who the author in fact really was. On that point the author outed him or herself quite early despite trying to speak about his or herself in the 3rd person. By then there was interest in the book by those alert to the damage the mindless sisters would try to inflict given any opportunity. As it prevails it was fairly quickly discovered that 2 shops were stocking the book which they soon withdrew from sale based on advice that it was a highly defamatory work that would never have been published other than by a self publisher.

Of course the sisters protested about free speech, a concept that escapes them that free speech isn't actually an opportunity to speak or write any old nonsense - particular defamatory material or one sided hate speech. Soon however it became evident they had found another outlet - Trade Me. Yes, that's right. The sisters, somehow unable to connect that TM had previously been sued for publishing misinformation and lies on the Bain case, and were therefore likely to be very cautious about the old subject and who was bringing it to the fore once again. The sisters either didn't appear to have given a passing thought that TM would be concerned to learn that the 'old team' were back to their tricks. Though to be fair to the sisters they are well capable of convincing themselves of anything and could have brought the line the book was in fact 'true,' or even bizarrely  considered that TM would be on their side, such are the problems they exhibit. By this time it was known that the book published a name that was permanently suppressed so it is not difficult to imagine why TM withdrew it from sale whilst keeping a wary eye on not being sued itself.

By this time the anger stakes had risen, the sisters scheme wasn't going to plan - a new best seller wasn't emerging to prove that sisters were indeed, after all, 'right thinking New Zealanders. In fact that the 'best seller' wasn't a seller at all. The stakes were raised,  the news filtered out that inquiries were being made about the breach of a suppression order to which a chorus broke out on message boards that the allegation was untrue. Obviously this was a very important issue for the sisters, keen not to end up in Court. By week's end the author had not only outed his or herself, citing having not done so earlier because of the old 'threats' excuse that is always somewhere near the top of the mitigation list. Of course by feeling threatened about revealing his or her identity is some what reduced to pure nonsense when the 'threatened' person does exactly what they had claimed they couldn't do because it wasn't 'safe', but things are never simple in googa land, particularly when the pressure is on. Perhaps more interestingly, and as no surprise to this commentator, the author also revealed the poorly kept secret that the 'book' was actually plagiarized from, yes, the Counterspin site - with permission of course. I can imagine Kent Parker would love to have his 'ramblings' accepted as truthful, it would be a type of vindication for him in terms on the many charges of defamation he was found guilty of a couple of years ago. The later fact bearing no reason for consideration on the dumb author about the 'quality' and veracity of the material he was copying. Meanwhile Kent was equally oblivious that the had been sued before for material taken from his site and published else where - I guess he forgot in his excitement and relief of knowing he was going to be vindicated.

I know that is a difficult logic to follow but no more 'difficult' to accept that the great conspiracy the sisters have convinced themselves exists - that they are the only people in NZ who know what's going on and all theirs mishaps and failed predictions to date are simply an effort by others to hide the truth. They can't comprehend that the latest 'work' could actually be defamatory because it appears to them to be all true and just something they need to 'get out there' without apparently being able to absorb that is what they having been doing for many years. Fun while it lasted, but worth an ongoing watch in terms of the suppression breach. The author now appears to have gone underground, perhaps because, as it is recorded on Beyond's Blog, the book published a suppressed name most likely now to have been confirmed by the Christchurch High Court. It's hard to wonder why when the first information emerged to the author and cohorts they in a fury published the name else where all over the internet. It seems a person of reasonable caution would have made certain whether the suppression order existed or not, rather than argue that it didn't because on the face of it a particular person's name was published until a certain date and not thereafter.

With the many claims about the cost of the self published work that apparently appears not to have been professionally edited let alone cross checked as being accurate in it's facts, it beggars belief that a lawyer's advice was not sought on the contents. I note around the time of publication Kent started blogging again, attacking Karam and the Judge who oversaw his Trial. For me those events happening in apparent unison was not accidental. It seems Kent's blog was the result of he and the author convincing themselves that Kent, because of his failed defences against defamation in particular, was elevated to an expert and that they couldn't contain themselves in their excitement that both Kent and the 'secret' author would be applauded for being 'right' all the way along. Another bus they missed.


  1. I haven't seen the publishing attempt, but I'll repeat a quote from Joe Karam's first book:
    "The eyeglass lens deserves its own book".
    Someone needs to write that book.

  2. It would be great wouldn't it Lee, the lens remains as evidence of how David Bain was mistreated. The lens shows how a Miscarriage of Justice was constructed, it may even be the foremost foundation stone of that Miscarriage of Justice.

    1. Yes, but my concern is that an optical illusion could have been believed to be a lens, considering that:
      1. the visible floor area of Stephen Bain's room was 2 x 2 meters
      2. the optical illusion, believed by all to be a lens leaning against a boot, was 45 centimeters from Stephen Bain's right foot.
      3. Many human observers would have had a chance to see the claimed lens in the 80 hours and 32 minutes between its 'photograph', and its discovery which, as I recall, was made underneath the boot.
      I watched the news every night of the first trial, and I don't remember any report that the lens was unseen for 80 hours.
      The first report of that was by...Joe Karam.
      I found Mike's email address, and want to ask him to write a book, with interviews of some of the believers present, asking them if they feel silly to have believed, now that they know that the optical illusion wasn't a lens.
      Or, do they still believe that the optical illusion was a lens? And, if they do, how do they think the lens moved, from leaning against the boot, to its discovery position, underneath the boot?
      As Joe said, it "deserves its own book".

  3. Lee/Nosty
    I think the loons piece of fiction should have Marzuka to do the cartoons, I'd love to see his illustration of David wearing the lens, shooting people at point blank range, just for the sheer entertainment value. Am sure this book does contain a high degree of entertainment value!

  4. But the fact remains, there was NO forensic evidence on the lens & frames found in David's room. There was no blood splatter etc, and the dust on the lens, that would have made viewing through them difficult, still remained, so they had not been wiped down. If David had worn those spectacles to watch the video the previous night, as Stockdale claims, then to have seen the picture, they would have needed wiping.

    They're a distraction for absolute idiots - of which Stockdale meets the criteria.