As is his habit Taylor searches in the past, invariably pre-trial to find information helpful to his persecuting cause and to attempt to 'free' the name of Robin Bain from the cloak of child molester that shall inevitably follow while any memory of him remains.
This rehashed nonsense from Taylor...
I wanted to have a look at the notion promoted by Cyber,te,project etc that the police investigation at the very start on the morning of the 20th of June 1994 set about as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to "stitch" or frame David Bain. I will focus on the "planted" lens theory:
"
Since Karam is insistent about his lens theory, it's worth noting
what would have had to happen for Weir to plant it;
Weir would have needed to know Bain habitually wore
glasses. (He wore none when police arrived; his own were being
repaired.)
Weir also had to know that the damaged glasses in
Bain's room we re either his, or useful to him, when he arrived at ,
Every Street, some hours after his colleagues did .
Knowing this in advance, Weir would have had to discover
the damaged lens, which was missing from the glasses frame, and
then secretly plant it - though the first thing he did when he
took control of the scene was have photos and video recordings
taken.
What's more, Weir had to have made up his mind by the time
he arrived - he'd have no chance to move the lens later, when
the visual record had been made - that (DAVID)Bain was the guilty man.
But police admit Robin Bain was their suspect for the first two
days.
Karam overlooks the fact the policeman who stayed with Bain
from the moment police arrived saw the damaged glasses then,
minus their lens. (in david's room)
Bain himself offers no satisfactory explanation for any of this,and Karam offers
no explanation as to why Weir might have wanted to set Bain up."
I am indebted to the North and South article by Rosemary Mcleod on Joe Karam and the Bain murders.As he offers no satisfactory explanation maybe cyber would like to try.I know the Ian Wishart article will probably come up but that in itself cannot explain the police actions on the morning of the 20th. Certainly a fertile and happy hunting ground for Holocaust,9/11,moon landing deniers and theorists etc.

Edited by jeeves-50 at 10:05 am, Fri 19 Nov
Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 10:02 am, Fri 19 Nov #30449
He returns to the 'vaunted' opinion of Rosemary McLeod's discredited piece that she settled a defamation suit over fully knowledgeable of the fact that her 'opinion' was nothing more than one sided nonsense. Worth looking at again for those missing structures to bridge the gap between truth and the motivation of those that seek to hide it.
Of course Weir need not have known on his arrival at Every Street that David Bain wore glasses, in fact by sequence of events he need not have known for several more hours or even days before he found the 'golden bullet' piece of evidence. This 'find' despite that other officers, tasked with the job, had already searched the room. McLeod rehashes the now disproved theory that dear daddy was being treated as the suspect yet we know that it was his son, David, that was strip searched and had intimate samples taken. In the garbled mind of McLeod or Taylor clearly witnesses or potential witnesses, indeed victims are strip searched and samples taken from them for forensic testing to determine if they may have recently had sex with any of the victims, while the suspect is 'excused' the formality.
Stupid ass McLeod presents the idea that Weir couldn't have planted the lens because he had the scene photographed.... 'though the first thing he did when he
took control of the scene was have photos and video recordings
taken.
What's more, Weir had to have made up his mind by the time
he arrived - he'd have no chance to move the lens later, when
the visual record had been made - that (DAVID)Bain was the guilty man.'... When of course the lens was not shown in the photographs, but was recorded on Weir's job sheet (and remember his search was 'after hours' and beyond his role as OIC of the scene) as being found under a ski boot. Later of course Weir did identify the lens (also said to be a trick of light) from a photo and, in absolute contrast to his own notes, it was out in the open on the floor. It's common knowledge that Weir admitted misleading the Court about the location of the lens and this formed part of the Actual Miscarriage of Justice that the Privy Council found.
This entire idea that Weir was somehow estopped from realising the significance of what a 'suddenly' found lens (remember officers searching the room for many days had not found it) was is absolute nonsense, rudimentary, unmitigated claptrap - a manufactured myth that defies common sense or logic. This all or nothing approach taken by McLeod is critically flawed and it is no wonder she surrendered the point once brought to task.
And you Taylor, fiddler, are being brought to task. Your time of persecution and covering up fiddling is coming to an end. I note your sudden silence on Daddy's blood filling the barrel and on the blood of one of his victims being found on his right shoe, and of David being stripped searched and no scratches found on his chest. Speaking of chest, why don't you come clean and tell the world why you need to hide the fact that daddy was a fiddler, have you made some pledge to some organisation to do so? Get it off your chest man, you are a true dog - you lie, day in and day out, when proved to be a liar you simply move on to the next lie or piece of propaganda but now you are getting hauled in Taylor.
Showing posts with label Propogandists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Propogandists. Show all posts
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Zero hero nina_s
Oh look, zero hero nina_s, the person who denied being janejetson(0),bonecrusher(0),slimdusty(0) or that she was a member of a hate site is upset about other zero heroes like herself.
WHO ARE ALL YOU 'ZERO TRADE' DOOMSAYERS ABOUT THE HOBBIT?
I've noticed that a whole bunch of zero traders have appeared promoting the unions view on the Hobbit.
And all you zero's are busy filling the message board with threads on your labour/union propaganda.
Go away. These boards are for genuinely held opinions, not political party propaganda.
Quotenina_s (94 ) 7:48 am, Fri 29 Oct #1
The person(s) previously employed to spread sub-judice propoganda and defamation takes on a 'holier than thou' role. How quaint, touching, sweet even. Nina_concertina, how does your garden grow?
WHO ARE ALL YOU 'ZERO TRADE' DOOMSAYERS ABOUT THE HOBBIT?
I've noticed that a whole bunch of zero traders have appeared promoting the unions view on the Hobbit.
And all you zero's are busy filling the message board with threads on your labour/union propaganda.
Go away. These boards are for genuinely held opinions, not political party propaganda.
Quotenina_s (94 ) 7:48 am, Fri 29 Oct #1
The person(s) previously employed to spread sub-judice propoganda and defamation takes on a 'holier than thou' role. How quaint, touching, sweet even. Nina_concertina, how does your garden grow?
Monday, October 25, 2010
Melanie White. Remember her?
She was the one that sought to publicise the anniversary of the Bain deaths and invited the press and public to attend. She claims to be the class mate of Laniet (something who sister made the same claim about - leading to a public argument between the two on one of the hate-sites,) of course most will recall not one person apart from Melanie attended her sentimental, wrought with emotion, publicised memorial, apart from a sole reporter. No other classmates bothered to answer Melanie's pleas for people to attend. No other classmate has come forwarded (except her sister of course who said that it was she that was Laniet's friend and not Melanie) to support anything she says. Melanie even went onto invent a story of a 'confession' of sorts that implied that it was David and not daddy who was the fiddler in this plot, Melanie is a left-out fantasist, a dangerous, deranged individual who thinks Kent Parker is a genius - that fact alone ought to tell people something.
Well, yesterday, probably because of her usual loneliness and need for attention, any attention from anybody - and because even Kent doesn't want anything more to do with her, she claimed there was no evidence that daddy was a fiddler when in fact there is a copious amount, not just from a number of witnesses including a Doctor and others, but by the construction of circumstances that tell their own story, the absent daughter prostituting herself, her problems with drugs, her father's possessive infatuation with her, her father's negligence in helping her other - than as David told police, by 'giving her money and rides.'
Face it Melanie, there is an abundance of evidence that Robin was a fiddler, even now there are those that among his supporters who are self-confessed fiddlers or apologists for paedophiles. But a larger spectre emerges from that morning in Dunedin and hangs still yet in the sky of the history of this case, Robin Bains corruption of his own children and his own morals, and his cowardice that he could not end his own rotten life but that he must take them with him. You are a cowardly persecutor Melanie, you've invented lies to promote you paedophile supporting ways, but you now lie publicly and deny that there were many witnesses who helped uncover what Robin tried to cover with his disturbed, depressed mind and a firearm. Have you no decency, interest in the truth, ability to be constructive with evidence which is widely known, apparently not. It is beyond you, anything other than hate or seeking attention is beyond you. You should be in the whacko ward.
Well, yesterday, probably because of her usual loneliness and need for attention, any attention from anybody - and because even Kent doesn't want anything more to do with her, she claimed there was no evidence that daddy was a fiddler when in fact there is a copious amount, not just from a number of witnesses including a Doctor and others, but by the construction of circumstances that tell their own story, the absent daughter prostituting herself, her problems with drugs, her father's possessive infatuation with her, her father's negligence in helping her other - than as David told police, by 'giving her money and rides.'
Face it Melanie, there is an abundance of evidence that Robin was a fiddler, even now there are those that among his supporters who are self-confessed fiddlers or apologists for paedophiles. But a larger spectre emerges from that morning in Dunedin and hangs still yet in the sky of the history of this case, Robin Bains corruption of his own children and his own morals, and his cowardice that he could not end his own rotten life but that he must take them with him. You are a cowardly persecutor Melanie, you've invented lies to promote you paedophile supporting ways, but you now lie publicly and deny that there were many witnesses who helped uncover what Robin tried to cover with his disturbed, depressed mind and a firearm. Have you no decency, interest in the truth, ability to be constructive with evidence which is widely known, apparently not. It is beyond you, anything other than hate or seeking attention is beyond you. You should be in the whacko ward.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Stockdale, jeeves 50 and goldnkiwi - paedophile apologists?
Why? Did someone say that in Papua New Guinea everyone molests children? I recall saying that, it would have been hard to keep the kids dressed in a Western fashion in the heat when their friends were not and that the housing was not likely to be the most private, I think if it is the same conversation that Centrepoint was brought up as an analogy, ecause you called someone Mr Potter, if that is the conversation to which you are alluding. Any way what is it in your reckoning that makes one a JFRBer, merely posting that Robin didn't commit suicide, is that sufficient? I do have to say that you seem to see paedophiles everywhere, if you are a 'professional' may I suggest that you heal youself before practicing on any one else. paedophiles seem to be your bogey man.
Edited by goldnkiwi at 3:56 pm, Wed 8 Sep
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 3:51 pm, Wed 8 Sep #25982
and again,
Did someone say that in Papua New Guinea everyone molests children? I recall saying that
Then Stockdale, first not a paedophile apologist, followed by agreement he is,
And I am not a paedophile apologist either,project,and I am not a supporter of a multi murderer ,either.
Actually,pro,an apologist is someone who explains or defends something by reasoned argument,so I will accept that word,as it certainly relates to me.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 4:21 pm, Wed 8 Sep #25991
Then questioning that they're not paedophile apologists
Not pedeophile apologists ? There is no direct evidence of this from first hand accounts like David.Only second hand heresay.When did David state his father was a pedeophile?
Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 3:07 pm, Wed 8 Sep #25971
There is a pattern emerging here folks, 3 of the same merry band, all hate-siters all offended that Robin is called a paedophile, then mitigation by them of the circumstances of his paedophilia. This follows the earlier post (recorded below) in which Stockdale 'explains' his views on what most people would consider paedophilia.
There were a few posts yesterday about the suppressed evidence,or evidence that the judge would not allow the jury to hear,if you like.
Now one witness said she recalled Arawa telling her about putting her finger in her vagina and that her father had shown her how to do do this.
Well,he may have.He may have shown her how to put her finger in her vagina.Some people take that to mean he put his finger in her vagina.
Karam said,in that debate with Laws,"That the fact of the matter is that it seems very clear now that Mr Robin Bain was molesting his other daughter".So he must take that view.
Look,the Bain children ran around naked in PNG.I daresay Robin Bain could have pointed to David Bain's penis and said that is called a penis.That does not mean he was molesting David.
I know that most of us find this behaviour strange.Maybe even all of us.But in PNG the Bain's were known for their strange behaviour as regards to sexual matters.
But that does not mean that anyone was molesting anyone.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 9:43 am, Sat 4 Sep #24897
There has long been a defensive attitude from the 'love Robin's' on the issue of incest, that often seemed to have been driven by something sinister, over the last few days, and yesterday in particular, it seems goldnkiwi, jeeves50 and Stockdale have lulled themselves into the belief that their views are generally held and therefore not offensive. They now present as apologists for paedophilia, persecutors in the name of paedophilia - a message for the few that signed their rotten petition, this cell, cult, are sick, sick people.
Edited by goldnkiwi at 3:56 pm, Wed 8 Sep
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 3:51 pm, Wed 8 Sep #25982
and again,
Did someone say that in Papua New Guinea everyone molests children? I recall saying that
Then Stockdale, first not a paedophile apologist, followed by agreement he is,
And I am not a paedophile apologist either,project,and I am not a supporter of a multi murderer ,either.
Actually,pro,an apologist is someone who explains or defends something by reasoned argument,so I will accept that word,as it certainly relates to me.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 4:21 pm, Wed 8 Sep #25991
Then questioning that they're not paedophile apologists
Not pedeophile apologists ? There is no direct evidence of this from first hand accounts like David.Only second hand heresay.When did David state his father was a pedeophile?
Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 3:07 pm, Wed 8 Sep #25971
There is a pattern emerging here folks, 3 of the same merry band, all hate-siters all offended that Robin is called a paedophile, then mitigation by them of the circumstances of his paedophilia. This follows the earlier post (recorded below) in which Stockdale 'explains' his views on what most people would consider paedophilia.
There were a few posts yesterday about the suppressed evidence,or evidence that the judge would not allow the jury to hear,if you like.
Now one witness said she recalled Arawa telling her about putting her finger in her vagina and that her father had shown her how to do do this.
Well,he may have.He may have shown her how to put her finger in her vagina.Some people take that to mean he put his finger in her vagina.
Karam said,in that debate with Laws,"That the fact of the matter is that it seems very clear now that Mr Robin Bain was molesting his other daughter".So he must take that view.
Look,the Bain children ran around naked in PNG.I daresay Robin Bain could have pointed to David Bain's penis and said that is called a penis.That does not mean he was molesting David.
I know that most of us find this behaviour strange.Maybe even all of us.But in PNG the Bain's were known for their strange behaviour as regards to sexual matters.
But that does not mean that anyone was molesting anyone.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 9:43 am, Sat 4 Sep #24897
There has long been a defensive attitude from the 'love Robin's' on the issue of incest, that often seemed to have been driven by something sinister, over the last few days, and yesterday in particular, it seems goldnkiwi, jeeves50 and Stockdale have lulled themselves into the belief that their views are generally held and therefore not offensive. They now present as apologists for paedophilia, persecutors in the name of paedophilia - a message for the few that signed their rotten petition, this cell, cult, are sick, sick people.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Bob's blog from Counterspin.
With the Bain case at the first trial the judge said "well was it Robin or David", and in the second trial the judge asked the same question, so we have two possible murderers, but to identify who the killer was between these two, completely different methods were used, which is really quite unusual I believe. With David a normal method was able to be used ie: a thorough examination of the murder scenes was done, many forensic tests were carried out, statements were taken, testimony from David at court was compared to those earlier statements etc, and at the end a substantial amount of evidence against David was compiled.
Poor Bob is a plot loser. He talks about two completely different methods of investigation. Of course there should have been solely one investigation, nothing prejudged and no decision made on charges before the results of the forensic tests were known. He aptly describes what appears to be the fatal flaw of the murder/suicide investigation - that decisions were being made before the gathering of evidence was concluded, before test results were returned, before the incest allegations were investigated. The inquiry became one-sided very early on, from the point the attention focused on David, before the final death scene was comprehended, before assessments were made as to Robin's mental health. So although Bob doesn't realise it, the investigation was one-sided in Robin's favour for many years until the actual miscarriage of justice was unpicked. I think we all understand that background checks on Robin were focused in a particular way, whilst those concerning David in another.
With Robin, the other person mentioned by the judge as a possible killer, a completely different investigation was done. That investigation focused almost entirely, and still does today by David Bain supporters on whether Robin had committed suicide. The reason this was done, of course, was because there was hardly a shred of evidence connecting him to the murder scenes. As far as I know all of the independent experts from the first trial, after looking at the evidence, said in their opinion Robin Bain did not shoot himself. There were many reasons for them arriving at their conclusions, one of them being the near impossibility of the bullet magazine landing on its thin edge, another was the empty shell casing found in the computer alcove, and then there was the fact that only Robin's blood from his head wound was found on all of Robin's clothes. So the chance of it being suicide is extremely unlikely, add that to the fact there is almost zero evidence of any value connecting Robin to the murders, then look at the vast amount of good circumstantial evidence against David and the extremely unlikely scenario of Robin shooting himself and you can not possibly consider that David is innocent.
Here Bob labours the same point as earlier, and demonstrates again (without apparently realising) how the original investigation was biased against David. Bob runs out the old 'favourites' like the magazine being on its edge, but unfortunately is unable to point to any evidence that shows Robin didn't place it there before dispatching himself, or that the magazine, like other corrupted exhibits in the scene (remembering that the police team gave evidence of 'moving' exhibits between photo shots) was not placed in that position by someone other than either of the 2 men. He labours the shell casing landing in the alcove without acknowledging that a police witness said it was possible to have discharged there, and again not discounting the corrupted evidence scene that any juror would have had misgivings about. Bob then reverts to a lie about the blood, he's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about. Most with an interest in the case know that blood samples cut from Robin's trousers were never tested, they were however thrown out because the police didn't like 'body samples' being held at the police station. Amazingly, they threw away the samples but kept the clothes. It goes a little further on this point of the blood samples, the samples that were 'disposed' of were at the time being sought by the defence for testing, they were preparing a motion to the Court for their preservation and the police knew about that. Bob forgets that for some reason - in his 'reasoned' argument. He sums up with a few sweeping cliches that could bear no critical analysis, he wants only to reach the point of being able to confirm his belief based on his flawed study.
David Bain supporters like Joe Karam spend 99% of their time arguing that Robin Bain committed suicide, and unfortunately Robin Bain supporters quite often, Laws included, fall into the trap of arguing back. This is a murder case and the emphasis and focus should be almost solely fixed on the evidence for murder, of which there is ample, and it only points to one of the persons mentioned by the judges. This in my opinion is mostly why the wrong verdict was arrived at at trial in 2009. The jury possibly became confused with all the irrelevant information they were subjected to. The evidence for murder is what it should have been all about.
Bob sums up with generalities as to 'Bain supporters' do according to him, he then chucks about some more cliches, but no firm evidence, to support the reasons why he and his site persecute a innocent man. Bobs reasoning doesn't reach any critical standard, which is one of the problems of being a member of a hate-site, mediocrity rules, the scenario is set and everything is ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented. He completely ignores the blood found in the rifle, the unscreened blood spray, that the first four killings were killer dominant, downward trajectory, and the last, passive upward shot with the head touching the rifle.
»
Bob's blog
Poor Bob is a plot loser. He talks about two completely different methods of investigation. Of course there should have been solely one investigation, nothing prejudged and no decision made on charges before the results of the forensic tests were known. He aptly describes what appears to be the fatal flaw of the murder/suicide investigation - that decisions were being made before the gathering of evidence was concluded, before test results were returned, before the incest allegations were investigated. The inquiry became one-sided very early on, from the point the attention focused on David, before the final death scene was comprehended, before assessments were made as to Robin's mental health. So although Bob doesn't realise it, the investigation was one-sided in Robin's favour for many years until the actual miscarriage of justice was unpicked. I think we all understand that background checks on Robin were focused in a particular way, whilst those concerning David in another.
With Robin, the other person mentioned by the judge as a possible killer, a completely different investigation was done. That investigation focused almost entirely, and still does today by David Bain supporters on whether Robin had committed suicide. The reason this was done, of course, was because there was hardly a shred of evidence connecting him to the murder scenes. As far as I know all of the independent experts from the first trial, after looking at the evidence, said in their opinion Robin Bain did not shoot himself. There were many reasons for them arriving at their conclusions, one of them being the near impossibility of the bullet magazine landing on its thin edge, another was the empty shell casing found in the computer alcove, and then there was the fact that only Robin's blood from his head wound was found on all of Robin's clothes. So the chance of it being suicide is extremely unlikely, add that to the fact there is almost zero evidence of any value connecting Robin to the murders, then look at the vast amount of good circumstantial evidence against David and the extremely unlikely scenario of Robin shooting himself and you can not possibly consider that David is innocent.
Here Bob labours the same point as earlier, and demonstrates again (without apparently realising) how the original investigation was biased against David. Bob runs out the old 'favourites' like the magazine being on its edge, but unfortunately is unable to point to any evidence that shows Robin didn't place it there before dispatching himself, or that the magazine, like other corrupted exhibits in the scene (remembering that the police team gave evidence of 'moving' exhibits between photo shots) was not placed in that position by someone other than either of the 2 men. He labours the shell casing landing in the alcove without acknowledging that a police witness said it was possible to have discharged there, and again not discounting the corrupted evidence scene that any juror would have had misgivings about. Bob then reverts to a lie about the blood, he's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about. Most with an interest in the case know that blood samples cut from Robin's trousers were never tested, they were however thrown out because the police didn't like 'body samples' being held at the police station. Amazingly, they threw away the samples but kept the clothes. It goes a little further on this point of the blood samples, the samples that were 'disposed' of were at the time being sought by the defence for testing, they were preparing a motion to the Court for their preservation and the police knew about that. Bob forgets that for some reason - in his 'reasoned' argument. He sums up with a few sweeping cliches that could bear no critical analysis, he wants only to reach the point of being able to confirm his belief based on his flawed study.
David Bain supporters like Joe Karam spend 99% of their time arguing that Robin Bain committed suicide, and unfortunately Robin Bain supporters quite often, Laws included, fall into the trap of arguing back. This is a murder case and the emphasis and focus should be almost solely fixed on the evidence for murder, of which there is ample, and it only points to one of the persons mentioned by the judges. This in my opinion is mostly why the wrong verdict was arrived at at trial in 2009. The jury possibly became confused with all the irrelevant information they were subjected to. The evidence for murder is what it should have been all about.
Bob sums up with generalities as to 'Bain supporters' do according to him, he then chucks about some more cliches, but no firm evidence, to support the reasons why he and his site persecute a innocent man. Bobs reasoning doesn't reach any critical standard, which is one of the problems of being a member of a hate-site, mediocrity rules, the scenario is set and everything is ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented. He completely ignores the blood found in the rifle, the unscreened blood spray, that the first four killings were killer dominant, downward trajectory, and the last, passive upward shot with the head touching the rifle.
»
Bob's blog
Sunday, August 8, 2010
nina_s
The Trade Me poster nina_s likes to be the centre of attention. She is one of the 3 original twisted sisters whose sole target was to lie and influence opinion about David Bain particularly during his retrial, however she is fragile minded and prone to mistakes which have resulted in her being caught out lying frequently. Her opinion of herself is not to be veiwed without anything other than light-dampening sunglasses such is the glow in which she imagines herself.
Most recently she has used two other identities, slimdusty2 and Jane Jetson. Her hopeful explanation for this was that she was being stalked. However a search readily found that she had a none too complimentary following on another board where a poster likened her ability to put her own foot in her mouth as a outstanding example of being able to constantly shoot herself in the foot.
Because she is fragile minded, and so absorbed in self-love, nina_s seems incapable or realising that any message board has a memory despite her attempts to re-invent herself. Attempts which however, despite nina_s mediocre efforts to cover her tracks, always result in her nasty side rising to the surface. She is a past master of blaming others for conduct that she exhibits herself, one of her many achille's heels is the fact that she isn't bright and easily becomes jealous of other posters she imagines outshine her.
One of nina_s classics was to claim on the boards that Robin Bain had been shot with a shotgun. On another occasion in her haste to be heard, she let go an honest clanger, that she, being an expert in such things, could confirm that the David's 111 call was genuine - indeed one of the few times nina_s ever got anything right, but as would be assumed, not what her fellow sisters wanted to hear - leading her to try to wriggle out of it.
But of interest to me was nina_s arrival on the boards and in very short order beginning to post endless defamatory comment about Joe Karam and others. Something which after a possibly self-imposed exile she pretended never happened despite the board remembering otherwise and the records in archives and else where.
How unfortunate that nina_s would use the name of a celebrated blues singer from which to mount her persecution against David and others. The real nina had soul and compassion while the pretend nina_s has neither, the real nina had often expressed love for others, and concern for the misfortune of others, while the pretend nina_s loves only herself.
In a classic display of the true character of this anonymous (trying to be reformed) defamer, nina_s held silent when one of her fellow persecutors, kirkmaiden, wrote how he or she would like to see the subject of their persecution hang, a reflection of sorts that was attended by another persecuter, millie 231 who added, to be hung and able to be watched 'by torchlight.' Perhaps somewhat naively, and hoping that nina_s would be able to identify with the horror of the suggestion of these posts, with which the real nina has sung on video about lynching with clips of such real tragedy, another user posted the link. This was greeted with howls of outrage from the good, holier than thou nina_s, but not one word of disgust did nina_s raise against the sick fantasies of her fellow persecutors in expressing a desire or lust, to see a man found not guilty hung for crimes he never committed.
Footnote: New Zealand to its great credit dispensed with capital punishment over 50 years ago. One of the last men hung, a farmer by the name of Bolton, was and is considered by many to have been innocent - something which presumably would be of no genuine concern to nina_s and her fellow persecutors: the hanging of an innocent man.
Most recently she has used two other identities, slimdusty2 and Jane Jetson. Her hopeful explanation for this was that she was being stalked. However a search readily found that she had a none too complimentary following on another board where a poster likened her ability to put her own foot in her mouth as a outstanding example of being able to constantly shoot herself in the foot.
Because she is fragile minded, and so absorbed in self-love, nina_s seems incapable or realising that any message board has a memory despite her attempts to re-invent herself. Attempts which however, despite nina_s mediocre efforts to cover her tracks, always result in her nasty side rising to the surface. She is a past master of blaming others for conduct that she exhibits herself, one of her many achille's heels is the fact that she isn't bright and easily becomes jealous of other posters she imagines outshine her.
One of nina_s classics was to claim on the boards that Robin Bain had been shot with a shotgun. On another occasion in her haste to be heard, she let go an honest clanger, that she, being an expert in such things, could confirm that the David's 111 call was genuine - indeed one of the few times nina_s ever got anything right, but as would be assumed, not what her fellow sisters wanted to hear - leading her to try to wriggle out of it.
But of interest to me was nina_s arrival on the boards and in very short order beginning to post endless defamatory comment about Joe Karam and others. Something which after a possibly self-imposed exile she pretended never happened despite the board remembering otherwise and the records in archives and else where.
How unfortunate that nina_s would use the name of a celebrated blues singer from which to mount her persecution against David and others. The real nina had soul and compassion while the pretend nina_s has neither, the real nina had often expressed love for others, and concern for the misfortune of others, while the pretend nina_s loves only herself.
In a classic display of the true character of this anonymous (trying to be reformed) defamer, nina_s held silent when one of her fellow persecutors, kirkmaiden, wrote how he or she would like to see the subject of their persecution hang, a reflection of sorts that was attended by another persecuter, millie 231 who added, to be hung and able to be watched 'by torchlight.' Perhaps somewhat naively, and hoping that nina_s would be able to identify with the horror of the suggestion of these posts, with which the real nina has sung on video about lynching with clips of such real tragedy, another user posted the link. This was greeted with howls of outrage from the good, holier than thou nina_s, but not one word of disgust did nina_s raise against the sick fantasies of her fellow persecutors in expressing a desire or lust, to see a man found not guilty hung for crimes he never committed.
Footnote: New Zealand to its great credit dispensed with capital punishment over 50 years ago. One of the last men hung, a farmer by the name of Bolton, was and is considered by many to have been innocent - something which presumably would be of no genuine concern to nina_s and her fellow persecutors: the hanging of an innocent man.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The Laws Effect
Are we enriched by arguments that hold no water, that simply have an appeal to prejudice or the popular notions of some. I don't think so. Surface-skimming thinking is perhaps comfortable for those that feel no challenge to reconcile the logic of a situation or information they hear.
It is a fairly daunting proposition that some leaders, members of the media feel uninhibited when pushing certain buttons that appeal to populism of one sort or the other. I think any substitute for the truth of logic offered to the public is cowardice. It reminds me of the adage of the ends justifies the means - something which I reject as being healthy for society, also a step away from democracy, that reinforces a view that the 'enlightened' can spark the fires of struggling lesser lights.
If populism reigns by deceit or misinformation, we all lose. The political leader who has risen to power having started with honest beliefs and an application of logic and goodwill to those he serves must be jealous to that cause, must never forget it is not what he or she says and how, but rather the truth of what he or she says or does. Muldoon crossing the floor to vote against capital punishment, stepping from under the party umbrella to express his own view, the NZers who found the moral fortitude to say 'stop' to racially selected teams visiting our country and who were bashed for their beliefs, Justic Mahon for sifting for the truth in the Erubus disaster after books had been closed or destroyed to mask the truth. Muldoon again for pardoning Arthur Thomas. The passive occupation of Bastion Point. Protestors against the nuclear tests in the Pacific and finally the prevention of nuclear powered or armed ships from arriving in our waters. Whina Cooper marching to Wellington with nobility and dignity and the grace of ancestors cushioning her every step. What do these few events have in common? Individuals or collection of individuals concerned for the greater good and a definition of truth to satisfy us all.
So who are these men and women that perpetuated myth. Who turn away from listening to the truth or merely shout over it, they are cowards, those that have no courage to speak out when a woman from Iran is flogged in front of her own son, or indeed floged at all, having 'confessed' under torture. The same people that are outraged when an Invercargill businessman refuses coffee to two customers as a protest against civilians being bombed in the Middle East. Are these people free? I say no, they're enslaved by predjudice and hate, by power that has exhausted itself and which can only be ignited by venom as truth has long since been extinquished. I vote for truth not slogans, facts to be carefully examined - not mantra. I vote for freedom.
It is a fairly daunting proposition that some leaders, members of the media feel uninhibited when pushing certain buttons that appeal to populism of one sort or the other. I think any substitute for the truth of logic offered to the public is cowardice. It reminds me of the adage of the ends justifies the means - something which I reject as being healthy for society, also a step away from democracy, that reinforces a view that the 'enlightened' can spark the fires of struggling lesser lights.
If populism reigns by deceit or misinformation, we all lose. The political leader who has risen to power having started with honest beliefs and an application of logic and goodwill to those he serves must be jealous to that cause, must never forget it is not what he or she says and how, but rather the truth of what he or she says or does. Muldoon crossing the floor to vote against capital punishment, stepping from under the party umbrella to express his own view, the NZers who found the moral fortitude to say 'stop' to racially selected teams visiting our country and who were bashed for their beliefs, Justic Mahon for sifting for the truth in the Erubus disaster after books had been closed or destroyed to mask the truth. Muldoon again for pardoning Arthur Thomas. The passive occupation of Bastion Point. Protestors against the nuclear tests in the Pacific and finally the prevention of nuclear powered or armed ships from arriving in our waters. Whina Cooper marching to Wellington with nobility and dignity and the grace of ancestors cushioning her every step. What do these few events have in common? Individuals or collection of individuals concerned for the greater good and a definition of truth to satisfy us all.
So who are these men and women that perpetuated myth. Who turn away from listening to the truth or merely shout over it, they are cowards, those that have no courage to speak out when a woman from Iran is flogged in front of her own son, or indeed floged at all, having 'confessed' under torture. The same people that are outraged when an Invercargill businessman refuses coffee to two customers as a protest against civilians being bombed in the Middle East. Are these people free? I say no, they're enslaved by predjudice and hate, by power that has exhausted itself and which can only be ignited by venom as truth has long since been extinquished. I vote for truth not slogans, facts to be carefully examined - not mantra. I vote for freedom.
Friday, August 6, 2010
From anonymous:
Anonymous said...
Why hasn't all this been in the papers too? Why have they reported all the trash against David, with TV interviews of people who didn't even give evidence, but not the people who did give evidence but had it ruled inadmissible like the evidence about Arawa? I feel manipulated.
August 6, 2010 4:10 PM
Well, we have been manipulated.
The sorrowful thing about the Laws debate is that he was unable to react to the evidence in any meaningful way. I was left with the impression that he wasn't interested in any detail because his mind was already made up, uninformed that he was. I think something as serious as the Bain case warranted a different kind of forum, and probably one that wasn't adversative. Had Law reacted less defensively the public would have had a great opportunity to transverse the evidence in greater detail because it was clear that Karam had the transcript with him and was able to refer to the direct evidence and not something dreamed up in the small hours by a desperate twisted sister. For the benefit of listeners Laws should have raised misconceptions and accepted from the evidence the answers.
I enjoyed the short shift the dreamer who rang up about the content's of Karam's book and that of McNeish's and quoted evidence that didn't exist about Stephen waking to find David 'rehearsing' the murders. I suspect it was kent Parker wearing a mask and fishnets.
I maintain reservations of the a situation that is similar to trial by media, however, that there was at least one informed party present was a consolation and I note that the trial by media began with the fellow who made similar mistakes and poor assumptions in the Peter Ellis case.
Why hasn't all this been in the papers too? Why have they reported all the trash against David, with TV interviews of people who didn't even give evidence, but not the people who did give evidence but had it ruled inadmissible like the evidence about Arawa? I feel manipulated.
August 6, 2010 4:10 PM
Well, we have been manipulated.
The sorrowful thing about the Laws debate is that he was unable to react to the evidence in any meaningful way. I was left with the impression that he wasn't interested in any detail because his mind was already made up, uninformed that he was. I think something as serious as the Bain case warranted a different kind of forum, and probably one that wasn't adversative. Had Law reacted less defensively the public would have had a great opportunity to transverse the evidence in greater detail because it was clear that Karam had the transcript with him and was able to refer to the direct evidence and not something dreamed up in the small hours by a desperate twisted sister. For the benefit of listeners Laws should have raised misconceptions and accepted from the evidence the answers.
I enjoyed the short shift the dreamer who rang up about the content's of Karam's book and that of McNeish's and quoted evidence that didn't exist about Stephen waking to find David 'rehearsing' the murders. I suspect it was kent Parker wearing a mask and fishnets.
I maintain reservations of the a situation that is similar to trial by media, however, that there was at least one informed party present was a consolation and I note that the trial by media began with the fellow who made similar mistakes and poor assumptions in the Peter Ellis case.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Kent's a Genius.
It's official, thank goodness for that. sweet_ad has confirmed on TM that Kent is a genius. She could be right. He was smart enough not to attend the 'memorial' service that only sweet_ad turned up to along with a solitary reporter and 5,000 boxes of tissues. That's fairly brilliant of old kenty boy. But he's strugging on a few other fronts. For example being an expert on defamation until he got sued. Running a hate-site sucessfully for less than a year before being sued. Hosting a petition with forged signatures that he believes the Minister will accept. Being so bright that he continues to watch his 'followers,' yes followers because he's shaping up to be the messiah of half-wits, keeping up the defaming work to the point he's been resued and it's not even xmas. Putting that aside and relying instead on the insightful intellect of sweet_ad, who wants a husband (anybody will do even if she has to flatter them at length,)old kenty boy could be a genius afterall. I bet nina_concertina feels left out, sort of lonely.
I hope Kent's not feeling pressured about money. I've heard a defence might cost up to a million, and I know ret1 has promised another $10 after xmas. But old kukkybelle from TM has said money is not a problem. Not problem. No problem at all, she'll just have to find the cheque. For kent's sake I hope it's not like the autopsy report that she had read and was going to post on TM, the one that showed that Laniet had never been pregnant because we've been waiting 2 years for that. If she doesn't speed along Kent will be dragged kicking and screaming from the High Court yelling, 'don't you know who am? I'm old kenty boy the Messiah, and told you lot the cheque is in the mail.' Well, at least sweet_ad will hold a memorial service for him and no one will arrive, not even sweet_ad herself.
I hope Kent's not feeling pressured about money. I've heard a defence might cost up to a million, and I know ret1 has promised another $10 after xmas. But old kukkybelle from TM has said money is not a problem. Not problem. No problem at all, she'll just have to find the cheque. For kent's sake I hope it's not like the autopsy report that she had read and was going to post on TM, the one that showed that Laniet had never been pregnant because we've been waiting 2 years for that. If she doesn't speed along Kent will be dragged kicking and screaming from the High Court yelling, 'don't you know who am? I'm old kenty boy the Messiah, and told you lot the cheque is in the mail.' Well, at least sweet_ad will hold a memorial service for him and no one will arrive, not even sweet_ad herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)