Four years in the making and Kent Parker was beaten before his trial for defamation even began. Oddly enough Victor Purkiss never showed, nor did 30 odd witnesses also earlier scheduled to appear. Kent blamed that on money, proving that even at the end he was lying. A great swathe of his 'witnesses' were declared to have irrelevant testimony of no value to the now failed defence of Kent.
Kent was batting a double defence of truth and honest opinion. I had this debate with he and other of the sisters on line years ago. Their arguments were flawed then and by the third day of the Trial the Judge had ruled that Parker had no defence of truth. That needs to be put in context Parker and his group's attack on Karam had no basis in truth. That is a devastating indictment against the now defunct site 'Counterspin' and the facebook site 'Justice for Robin Bain.' They were founded on lies with the purpose to lie. These groups lied and continued to lie. It has only been in the last month or so that Trade Me have finally recognised that people like 'jeeves', Ralph Taylor and 'cookingwithgas,' Catherine Kennedy have defamed Karam and Bain for years on the TM boards by continuing to lie about 'facts' of the case. Trade Me had for some time difficulty following the 're-defined' subtleties as Kennedy and Taylor found new ways to defame - largely with the assistance of Trade Me failing to recognise the pattern of the defamation, it's changing style and its fuller context. Trade Me would simply remove posts and these two and others would 'rephrase' their attack. No excuse for that by Trade Me and they may yet have a sleeping giant of a case brought against them.
Of course the 'larger' framework was the two hate-sites, and their members, who deliberately published false information in order that others would believe David was guilty, was that Karam knew of that guilt and so on. The frustration is that the msm have taken so long to appreciate the 'work' of Parker and the others, despite the fact that it was glaringly obvious. During some of my first experiences with the 'sisters' I quickly discovered their modus operand. When I asked an obvious question - the condition of the deceased Robin's hands. The answer was no blood, no injuries but that David was 'covered' in blood. Absolute lies as I was soon to discover. I was also to discover the currency these claims had with people who simply accepted they were true without satisfying themselves of the facts. Quickly, it would be added that David had scratches to his chest consistent with being in a fight with Stephen, but by the time of the re-trial in 2009 it was clear David had no injuries to his chest when strip searched by the police doctor only hours after the murders/suicide. Even the strip search would be lied about and continued to be lied about in particular by one disgusting person from Palmerston North. A 'man' who among various other lies claimed that he was going to support Parker and Purkiss financially - so much for that with the news from Kent himself, no money.
Despite promises of funds from people such as Kennedy and Deb Coates, none of sufficient amounts arrived. While at the very same time the public defamation, asides and subtleties of hate continued. Kent however wasn't taken advantage of, he too kept up the diatribe right until the trial. Last Friday he confessed one evident fact: his campaign wasn't built on truth, soon he would also relinquish honest opinion. Some irony in that, I've read 100s of posts where the 'sisters' carefully say 'in my opinion' as though that protects them from being liable for defamation. I doubt that Kent gets that even now.
Yet what a devastated figure he is now that it is recorded that he wasn't supporting Robin Bain but attacking Karam and David with deliberate lies. Moreover, that everything he did was based on lies and lies is neither truth nor 'opinion.' Same goes for Cameron, Curran and others - in fact for all of those now crept off to the shadows, including the sicko school teacher Williams. Others will have noted that the Courts view arguing 'truth' is an aggravating feature of defamation, clearly because it shows an unwillingness to be truthful and is simply a matter of an excuse if the truth can't be proved as is the case in Karam v Parker and Purkiss.
Consider for a moment the way that Kent has been abandoned by those that promised him help. It's hard to like Kent for any reason, but the now shadowy figures such as Bill Rodie and others are the possessors of a bigger evil because they not only breath hate but retire from and abandon their own kind.
There are many issues left unresolved, not only the obvious efforts of Purkiss to 'run' but also of that Parker preparing the way already to declaring himself as unable to pay. I'm particularly interested in Van Beynan, somebody 'set up' by Fairfax and himself as the New Zealand media expert on the Bain case with the 'famous' phrase of 'sitting through nearly every minute of the retrial.' Does Van Beynan live in some kind of vacuum? Why did he never report the strip search of David Bain despite the controversy that surrounded it and how it was used literally 100s if thousands of time to present David as killer and Joe therefore of 'knowing' that David was guilty. Why didn't he step forward and 'clear' the matter up, he was after all a leading 'expert.' Why wasn't it important to him to make the truth known. After all it was he that sat at the top, he whose articles and facts were quoted. Whoops and he that 'stalked' jurors and travelled in a conference in Perth to ask a question of David in front of the world media that had no basis in truth. At least twice Fairfax have defended the reporting and 'opinions' of Van Beynan to the NZ Press Council. An opinion, much like that of Parkers, not built on truth.
It could yet be that Van Beynan is challenged on both his opinion and honesty because the inevitable conclusion of Parker's trial is also the inevitable conclusion of reading and believing that Van Beynan was, is, the foremost media authority on the Bain case - the man who 'sat through almost every minute of the trial.' I can clearly see that Van Beynan's writing on the Bain case, his obvious knowledge of how that writing was used by Parker and so in a way that he must have known bore no resemblance to the truth, was therefore a campaign against both Karam and David. He's caused a lot of harm, the hate-siters have quoted him for years in what has accumulated in Parker's defence of 'truth' and 'honest opinion' being rejected in the High Court. Van Beynan had the opportunity to put things wrong but instead chose to say that paying David compensation would be a travesty.
More of interest to come on Parker and at least one of the men taken to the shadows since the truth has become known. Will there be one pro-active and positive move by the sisters, or just sullen silence as they continue to creep away holding their purses.
Showing posts with label Martin Van Beyan 'reporter'. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Van Beyan 'reporter'. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Martin 'Probably' Van Beynan
It's been a 'big' week for the hate-siters one in which it appears they felt sure they would bounce back from the 'shocking news' for them that David Giles had demonstrated on TV3's 3 Degree show the high probability that David Bain is innocent and that his father, the late Robin, had not only killed David's mother and his three siblings but suicided in a 'classic' way in the lounge of the family home in Every Street Dunedin.
The hate-siters or the 'twisted sisters' as I sometime call them fought back earlier in the week when one of their administrators Melanie White complained that the 3 Degrees programme had been biased. Interestingly, the 3 Degrees show followed experiments on the murder weapon under observation of the police, scientists and various experts, in as much that observation was recorded it is hard for me to understand why something 'observed' requires to be balanced and how that balancing act could take place anyway. As some may have seen, 3 Degrees, invited long time 'expert' Martin Van Beynan onto the show last night no doubt to allow Martin to provide some 'balance.'
In as much as no other individual in New Zealand has contributed so much to the controversy surrounding the Bain case this was expected to be high, real life, drama. MVB has crowned himself an expert on the case and in the last week many commentators critical of David Bain have been quite flustered by the 'discovery' of David Giles that had been overlooked by police, experts and the public alike, creating an air of doubt and unease for those so use to rubbishing anything they could about David's acquittal, his compensation claim, and often referring to the 'expert' reports of MVB. Reading the Counterspin site before the show one commentator 'Charles' was glowing in his praise of the expertise and knowledge of MVB and predicting that the outcome would be positive for the battered campaign of the hate-siters.
Rather than seeimg a coherent and thoughtful speaker, MVB came across as unsure of himself, even confused. He wasn't able to get into stride, he may have realised too late that all his arguments which had been dismissed by a Jury, and by Justice Binnie, in his review of the evidence, had long ago lost their impact for many people, and those with a dispassionate view were most likely expecting a reasoned argument regarding the 'Giles find.' It never came, so weak was the MVB response that it culminated with a claim that police would 'probably' come up with something to explain what the expert MVB could not. I got the impression that live MVB was out of his depth, not only regarding his lack of knowledge of the Bain case but without his 'supporting cast' in the media - the hate-siters who would quote his misinformation about 'mountains of evidence' accepting a one sided biased observation about the evidence gleefully.
Martin claimed to have 30 points, which became 20 and finally he decided on 5 which would deflate the possible gsr evidence, yet they were all rejected or explained evidence that he merely parroted in a mantra type way, not directly or even remotely touching upon the key finding of Giles. I think most people would appreciate a school yard style argument where one boy, having not been able to match the other, brings up something else miles from the point of the argument - MVB demonstrated that last night almost to the point that revealed him as a fraud. I expect a 'investigative journalist,' if he didn't have something critical to add, would not skip to well-worn peripherals. In fact I'm sure a bona fide journalist would do that because he or she would not have invested in being right, would instead be interested in the outcome and open minded. That's what journalism is about it seems to me, discovery, not fear of being wrong, perhaps most of all it's about the New Zealand quality of appreciating fairness and not being bitter, disturbed or put off stride to discover that a wrong route had been taken.
But MVB is not a fair man, if was he would not still be repeating mantras which have been disproved. He would have long ago reported the critical factor of Robin's dna being found deep inside the rifle - the result of an upward contact shot. He would have accepted that blood smears on Robin's palms pointed firmly to his guilt and that the characteristics of his suicide, contact upward shot and put the statistical support for suicide in the above 90% region. This before the most basic approach of comparing the hands of the two 'suspects' - Robin's being bloody and bruised and David's clean and uninjured. He would not have searched for ridiculous arguments of Robin having injured his hands fixing guttering, injuries, in the case of the gsr 'burns' which showed in a photo but which were gone by the time of autopsy. 'Burns' with an alignment to the magazine width.
However right from the start, like he did last night, and which his followers from the hate-sites repeat, he would answer one piece of evidence pointing to Robin by parroting other evidence that he believed pointed to David. As I've written above, school yard stuff not effective and searching journalism, rather complete, biased, nonsense. All reasons why I believe MVB gave such a stuttering performance, he knows he has been found out and it makes him feel sick. He realises his 'investment' has been pure persecution swallowed up by nutters who can't and don't want to think for themselves.
For those that saw or heard the evidence of Dr Dempster, the Crown Pathologist, at the Bain trials, compare Dempster's response to the possibility of other explanations for evidence - completely neutral and unthreatened by it. Dempster did not burst out with the claim that he was the 'expert' and therefore he was not to be questioned on his commitment is to his science and the truth of it. MVB 'double faulted', he couldn't appreciate that many were critically interested in the 'Gile' evidence and would not be swayed by talk about 'pristine' fingerprints, full bladders and gurgling. He finally revealed himself as having missed the bus and having had mislead the NZ public, now the only question that remains is why?
The hate-siters or the 'twisted sisters' as I sometime call them fought back earlier in the week when one of their administrators Melanie White complained that the 3 Degrees programme had been biased. Interestingly, the 3 Degrees show followed experiments on the murder weapon under observation of the police, scientists and various experts, in as much that observation was recorded it is hard for me to understand why something 'observed' requires to be balanced and how that balancing act could take place anyway. As some may have seen, 3 Degrees, invited long time 'expert' Martin Van Beynan onto the show last night no doubt to allow Martin to provide some 'balance.'
In as much as no other individual in New Zealand has contributed so much to the controversy surrounding the Bain case this was expected to be high, real life, drama. MVB has crowned himself an expert on the case and in the last week many commentators critical of David Bain have been quite flustered by the 'discovery' of David Giles that had been overlooked by police, experts and the public alike, creating an air of doubt and unease for those so use to rubbishing anything they could about David's acquittal, his compensation claim, and often referring to the 'expert' reports of MVB. Reading the Counterspin site before the show one commentator 'Charles' was glowing in his praise of the expertise and knowledge of MVB and predicting that the outcome would be positive for the battered campaign of the hate-siters.
Rather than seeimg a coherent and thoughtful speaker, MVB came across as unsure of himself, even confused. He wasn't able to get into stride, he may have realised too late that all his arguments which had been dismissed by a Jury, and by Justice Binnie, in his review of the evidence, had long ago lost their impact for many people, and those with a dispassionate view were most likely expecting a reasoned argument regarding the 'Giles find.' It never came, so weak was the MVB response that it culminated with a claim that police would 'probably' come up with something to explain what the expert MVB could not. I got the impression that live MVB was out of his depth, not only regarding his lack of knowledge of the Bain case but without his 'supporting cast' in the media - the hate-siters who would quote his misinformation about 'mountains of evidence' accepting a one sided biased observation about the evidence gleefully.
Martin claimed to have 30 points, which became 20 and finally he decided on 5 which would deflate the possible gsr evidence, yet they were all rejected or explained evidence that he merely parroted in a mantra type way, not directly or even remotely touching upon the key finding of Giles. I think most people would appreciate a school yard style argument where one boy, having not been able to match the other, brings up something else miles from the point of the argument - MVB demonstrated that last night almost to the point that revealed him as a fraud. I expect a 'investigative journalist,' if he didn't have something critical to add, would not skip to well-worn peripherals. In fact I'm sure a bona fide journalist would do that because he or she would not have invested in being right, would instead be interested in the outcome and open minded. That's what journalism is about it seems to me, discovery, not fear of being wrong, perhaps most of all it's about the New Zealand quality of appreciating fairness and not being bitter, disturbed or put off stride to discover that a wrong route had been taken.
But MVB is not a fair man, if was he would not still be repeating mantras which have been disproved. He would have long ago reported the critical factor of Robin's dna being found deep inside the rifle - the result of an upward contact shot. He would have accepted that blood smears on Robin's palms pointed firmly to his guilt and that the characteristics of his suicide, contact upward shot and put the statistical support for suicide in the above 90% region. This before the most basic approach of comparing the hands of the two 'suspects' - Robin's being bloody and bruised and David's clean and uninjured. He would not have searched for ridiculous arguments of Robin having injured his hands fixing guttering, injuries, in the case of the gsr 'burns' which showed in a photo but which were gone by the time of autopsy. 'Burns' with an alignment to the magazine width.
However right from the start, like he did last night, and which his followers from the hate-sites repeat, he would answer one piece of evidence pointing to Robin by parroting other evidence that he believed pointed to David. As I've written above, school yard stuff not effective and searching journalism, rather complete, biased, nonsense. All reasons why I believe MVB gave such a stuttering performance, he knows he has been found out and it makes him feel sick. He realises his 'investment' has been pure persecution swallowed up by nutters who can't and don't want to think for themselves.
For those that saw or heard the evidence of Dr Dempster, the Crown Pathologist, at the Bain trials, compare Dempster's response to the possibility of other explanations for evidence - completely neutral and unthreatened by it. Dempster did not burst out with the claim that he was the 'expert' and therefore he was not to be questioned on his commitment is to his science and the truth of it. MVB 'double faulted', he couldn't appreciate that many were critically interested in the 'Gile' evidence and would not be swayed by talk about 'pristine' fingerprints, full bladders and gurgling. He finally revealed himself as having missed the bus and having had mislead the NZ public, now the only question that remains is why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)