It's fair to say that JFRB and Counterspin don't have a glorious record of success. In fact it's probably correct to say they don't have a record of success at all. Others may be aware that members of both sites claim to have spoken to various personnel involved in the Bain murder inquiries from which they put their own 'slant' on what they were 'told' or claim to be told in order to 'resurrect' their credibility on various issues.
The biggest perhaps of those issues was the claim that David Bain was never strip searched, If that were true it would follow that he may have had the scratches to his chest on the morning of the murders, significant evidence against him. From there things needed to be stretched because there is evidence given at both trials of a strip search and an exhibit remains of the form filled out in conjunction with that strip search that records there were no scratches on David's chest during that examination. That would be the finish of it for most people. A record of evidence of a search, and a record which included a diagram in which any relevant injuries would have been recorded to confirm the notes of the Doctor who conducted and recorded the search by diagram and notes, and who took invasive swabs for testing.
Of course hate-siters are not 'most people.' So years ago there was firstly a denial of any strip search and I'm confident that the foremost 'expert' and Court reporter Martin Van Beynan never revealed the strip search in all his writing on the case. Thus allowing him to make purchase of the 'scratches' in his obvious campaign against David Bain. Others will remember the links between the hate-sites and Van Beynan most notably because of the writings and claims of the hate-siters themselves. It appears to have been 'necessary' and 'critical' to mislead the public about the strip search in order to continue the hate-campaign against David Bain. Van Beynan sure played his part.
As information became more freely available that a strip search had taken place the hate-sites 'voiced' their interpretations of what a 'strip search' is despite it's obvious name, suggested also that the Doctor didn't do the strip search despite his own evidence and the various exhibits related to the search, then finally in a type of 'concession' one of the dear sisters revealed that he had spoken to police after which making various claims that the police said there was no search conducted, and or alternatively that David was searched 'wearing' a blanket in some bizarre dance of the 7 veils in which he 'managed' to prevent the Doctor 'seeing' those scratches, vaudeville or just plain insanity? All of this of course the bird brains expected others would believe. There were even revelations about who was spoken to within the police and what they said.
Some redoubtable soul however decided to contact the police and Justice Ministry themselves and was finally given all the known correspondence between the sister and the Government agencies. I had the opportunity to read that information and see revealed a petulant comment by the sister that he was upset that the Minister hadn't sent him the Binnie report for his review because he considered himself an expert on the case. Yes folks the demented dimwits expected to 'review' the Binnie report before it was released.
Additionally, there were communications from the police essentially telling the nutter to stop bothering police by phone, also to use normal procedures commensurate with the Official Information Act. However, and most significantly, there was no denial of the strip search, just some ambiguous language of what a 'strip' search might mean to various people but no denial of the evidence given by the Doctor, or associated various exhibits involved, the swabs, the body chart and so on.
Most people would leave it there, sprung. But not the JFRB, CS nutters. They needed to find out who had the information, applied for it and gloated on line about what they expected to be able to reveal about the identity of the recipient of the OIA material. In other words reverting to the old tiger spots of 'stalking' and beside themselves with the thought that they might discover who the correspondent was and begin to harass them. Of course the Minister's office was going to have none that, accepting the recipients position that they would be concerned that anyone from the hate-sites had their details based on a long history of stalking and threats by members against those that 'rejected' that the hate-siters were right and that the Privy Council, a Jury and Binnie were wrong.
So the pattern of the hate-sites continues, twist or omit the truth, personalise the 'opposition' by finding out as much about them as possible in order to take 'action' against them, their families and friends. All of this working on 2 fronts, one from the pen of van beynan, the other bile and hate from the twisted sisters, yet still the truth wins.
Showing posts with label activities of hate-sites and associates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activities of hate-sites and associates. Show all posts
Friday, August 9, 2013
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The sheer blindness of a hate-siter....
Even after a finding to the contrary this spinner still finds everything all hunky dory....
I still think it was a fairly well balanced documentary and not sprinkled with sequins and dollied up to make everyone think one of the victims did the deed.
Quote
phae (35 ) 11:13 am, Thu 24 Mar #13
No mention of course that she was part of a group that called the witness a perjurer, no apology for that.
Interesting to note the documentary and the 'potential' perjury charges were in reality the last foothold for the doomed, now that has gone as well leaving only history to recognise Robin Bain as killer of his own family as confirmed in a Court of Law in June 2009. Likewise seeing the leaving of idiots like the poster phae in the muck and filth of their own hate. Chin up phae, on second thoughts leave it down your yellow teeth and drooling crap are an unpleasant sight.
I still think it was a fairly well balanced documentary and not sprinkled with sequins and dollied up to make everyone think one of the victims did the deed.
Quote
phae (35 ) 11:13 am, Thu 24 Mar #13
No mention of course that she was part of a group that called the witness a perjurer, no apology for that.
Interesting to note the documentary and the 'potential' perjury charges were in reality the last foothold for the doomed, now that has gone as well leaving only history to recognise Robin Bain as killer of his own family as confirmed in a Court of Law in June 2009. Likewise seeing the leaving of idiots like the poster phae in the muck and filth of their own hate. Chin up phae, on second thoughts leave it down your yellow teeth and drooling crap are an unpleasant sight.
Even Bryan Bruce would admit today that he
was wrong and Joe Karam was right. But the more interesting aspect is that without a single pause for thought the hate-siters grabbed the opportunity to use against David Bain. That's the kind of people they are folks, they don't look for the truth they look for what protects the old man with the dirty habits and nothing else, and they don't care who they hurt. A great example of hate-siters at work, accusing a man of perjury on the basis of a few seconds of 'surprise' attack Television.
Makes Trade Me's position in the defamation of David and Joe, and the stalking it has allowed on it's boards to look perilous in the current proceedings because they simply can't say they didn't know - because they were written to and told, didn't bother to investigate and let the same continue - that's unlawful and damaging.
Makes Trade Me's position in the defamation of David and Joe, and the stalking it has allowed on it's boards to look perilous in the current proceedings because they simply can't say they didn't know - because they were written to and told, didn't bother to investigate and let the same continue - that's unlawful and damaging.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Some of the sweet sister blokes are already
showing a decided lack of fortitude. I wonder if it could be the light, or perhaps realising that no matter how perfect you imagine yourself to be, and how it is 'appropriate' to twist the truth to enable persecution that, after all, a crook is a crook, is a crook.
Wouldn't cross-examination be fun? Say for example if the hate-sites were held to be criminal organisations with the intention (because of their all-seeing righteousness) to pervert the Course of Justice. It might well be, and appears to be so, that when a bunch of nutters, start on a crusade, truth goes first, then adherence to the law, the law itself until they (the nutters) are simply a gang, witch hunters, a noose mob, 'entitled' to law break, search into the lives of individuals and break the law at whim.
Ironically, there are those among their number, who have already supplied evidence unwittingly of all the above activities, but what if there were cross-examination, prosecutions, computers and communications seized for analysis. That could be a lot of fun, but don't believe me. Some of them may even reveal participation in common organisations, or attendance to the view that children are chattels of some type. Somehow, I think fortitude begins to fade - bravado slinks away, the safety of numbers is no longer a strength - but I'm probably wrong and the hate-sites have simply shut up shop for a long public holiday or similar.
Wouldn't cross-examination be fun? Say for example if the hate-sites were held to be criminal organisations with the intention (because of their all-seeing righteousness) to pervert the Course of Justice. It might well be, and appears to be so, that when a bunch of nutters, start on a crusade, truth goes first, then adherence to the law, the law itself until they (the nutters) are simply a gang, witch hunters, a noose mob, 'entitled' to law break, search into the lives of individuals and break the law at whim.
Ironically, there are those among their number, who have already supplied evidence unwittingly of all the above activities, but what if there were cross-examination, prosecutions, computers and communications seized for analysis. That could be a lot of fun, but don't believe me. Some of them may even reveal participation in common organisations, or attendance to the view that children are chattels of some type. Somehow, I think fortitude begins to fade - bravado slinks away, the safety of numbers is no longer a strength - but I'm probably wrong and the hate-sites have simply shut up shop for a long public holiday or similar.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
I wonder whe 3 righteous men wouldn't
front up to Court to prove they weren't liars and stalkers? Hmmh, I wonder why one of them would be so stupid to provide evidence of his continued stalking?
Maybe networking in hate isn't the same as coming out in the cold light of day to be counted when it matters. Maybe it's just pure cowardice.
Maybe it's hard to face the truth that you are nothing more than a liar and a stalker whose only ambition in life is to persecute others and twist the law to protect sickos.
Maybe networking in hate isn't the same as coming out in the cold light of day to be counted when it matters. Maybe it's just pure cowardice.
Maybe it's hard to face the truth that you are nothing more than a liar and a stalker whose only ambition in life is to persecute others and twist the law to protect sickos.
Monday, February 28, 2011
More claims by the hate-sites discredited.
One of the great leaky planks the hate-siters used with almost hysterical glee was the fact that Robin Bain's prints were not identified on the rifle from the many that were found there. Many of the prints were not of satisfactory enough consistency to be helpful, of these, some of which were later destroyed, tests in more recent times would have been able to be done to exclude the fingerprints from having been Davids. Of course an exclusion is as important as a confirmation in a case that relied on much circumstantial evidence, prejudicial assertions and downright fabrications.
Much was made of the fact David's prints were found on the rifle in a carrying position as opposed to a firing position. In many ways the fact that David's prints may have been on the rifle or may not have been was redundant to proof of anything one way or the other. The rifle after all was his. This sensible conclusion was avoided by Jones the fingerprint 'expert' he was able to determine that the fingerprints were 'fresh.' His evidence on this may one day be assessed in the awarding of compensation to David, additionally he was able to say that David's fresh fingerprints were in blood and that the rifle had been wiped down. Of course at the retrail Jone's evidence was totally discredited along with his extrapolations. The British expert was able to say that under polilight the blood was shown not to be blood at all.
Of course there were already problems with trying to convince a Jury that a rifle that had been wiped down for fingerprints would still have many unidentifiable prints left on in. Jones not to outdone in his 'work' was also about to make the extraordinary claim that prints rather than flatten under pressure, sharpened into clearer definition which for me was probably the most outlandish allegation of the entire case. But what place does this have in the determination of Justice, an 'expert' claiming a rifle was wiped down whilst all the time knowing that prints remained on it. The same 'expert' claiming that prints were in blood, an interpretation that opposed established scientific knowledge to allow yet more 'non' evidence to exist against David where in fact none existed. The same officer anticipating he would be believed that something as soft and with the pliable texture of skin actually sharpened definition under pressure rather that doing the opposite (and normal) thing - flattening.
But just on these points, of liberties taken from evidence that didn't exist, was omitted, or hidden in every case (and there are scores in the final total) the net result worked against David. Everything worked against David, leaving the inevitable conclusion that the case against David Bain was orchestrated at every point. How did this happen just in the last couple of years in a Country where when some things are finally addressed there is always comment that the situation has moved on from there and the same mistakes wouldn't be made again? Why do we see here a repeat of the same old same old and anticipate the obligatory explanations that things have improved. It was less than 2 years ago that Jones repeated his nonsense evidence in a belligerent way that showed he had lost sight of his need to be objective and that his purpose was to serve Justice not to endeavour to manipulate it.
Less that 2 years ago much information became available in various forums, a number of peer-reviewed studies over thousands of suicide deaths by firearms. Although the results varied, the average finding would be around only a 5% chance that any fingerprints of the suicidee are found on the firearm. Or a 95% chance that none would be found on the firearm, this from studies that go back decades, not months or years but decades. But what happened in the case 'against' David?
In the case against David it was offered as 'proof' of his guilt that the 95% chance that his father's fingerprints were not able to be determined as being on the rifle (though may have been among the prints unable to be determined as belonging to Robin - and therefore not David's.) So somehow nothing, a 95% chance of nothing compared to a 5% chance of it being somehow 'evidence' was immediately weighed against David by inference by the Prosecution and by 'proof' from the hate-siters.
Moving onto the behaviour of a couple of the hate-siters in particular, Stockdale, no less than an administrator of a hate-site, repeated 1000s of times that the rifle had been wiped down for prints never offering a satisfactory answer of how the rifle if wiped down still retained prints. He never missed a beat on it, kept repeating the same story.. rifle wiped down, rifle wiped down... until it became a 'cyber fact.' I'll return to Stockdale in a minute but first will address the similar hate-message from one his cohorts Ralph Taylor.
Ralph Taylor liked to make fun of the idea that Robin had shot himself 'got up' and wiped the rifle down after he was dead. This amazing 'fact' culminated all the absurdity that Taylor claimed was part of David's defence. Of course nobody contended that Robin wiped the rifle down, the Crown contended David did but had only opposing proof that he had. Fast forward to Coroner Tim Scott decision delivered in a case where a husband shot his wife and fatherinlaw in Fielding last August. He concluded the differing ranges of the shots pointed to the husband Desmond Winnie as the killer. He also described how there were no fingerprints on the rifle, found between Winnie's legs, a feature he said that was not uncommon.
He went onto say 'It may have been that the offender wore gloves or wiped the firearm clean. I'm satisfied that....finding a firearm without any prints is not necessarily indicative of anything sinister,' he said. 'It may have related to the condition of the firearm or the fact that the firearm had to be handled by the police after the deaths. It may have related to the packaging of the firearm.'
Some remarkable similarities between Mr Scott's finding and aspects of the Bain case, no fingerprints, offender wearing gloves or wiping the rifle clean but which serve the unavoidable concerns of the prosecution of David Bain and the efforts made to re-manufacture evidence or lack of evidence as being some how conclusive in the failed case.
Back to Stockdale in concluding this piece, Stockdale's other pet lies were, that there was no blood found inside the barrel - although he eventually backed off from that, but didn't note the obvious result (note Scott's conclusion about the differing ranges of shots in the Fielding case,) also that David was not stripped searched and so the scratches to his chest were not found or seen by anybody on the morning of the murders but were (according to Stockdale) still there. Stockdale's claims (mimicking the Crowns) that David went out of his way to be 'seen' on the paper run to some how prove that he did the paper run when in fact the papers in the boxes were absolute proof of that - something Stockdale would later put down to his belief David needing to be seen could somehow related to his (David's) acting skills.
Much was made of the fact David's prints were found on the rifle in a carrying position as opposed to a firing position. In many ways the fact that David's prints may have been on the rifle or may not have been was redundant to proof of anything one way or the other. The rifle after all was his. This sensible conclusion was avoided by Jones the fingerprint 'expert' he was able to determine that the fingerprints were 'fresh.' His evidence on this may one day be assessed in the awarding of compensation to David, additionally he was able to say that David's fresh fingerprints were in blood and that the rifle had been wiped down. Of course at the retrail Jone's evidence was totally discredited along with his extrapolations. The British expert was able to say that under polilight the blood was shown not to be blood at all.
Of course there were already problems with trying to convince a Jury that a rifle that had been wiped down for fingerprints would still have many unidentifiable prints left on in. Jones not to outdone in his 'work' was also about to make the extraordinary claim that prints rather than flatten under pressure, sharpened into clearer definition which for me was probably the most outlandish allegation of the entire case. But what place does this have in the determination of Justice, an 'expert' claiming a rifle was wiped down whilst all the time knowing that prints remained on it. The same 'expert' claiming that prints were in blood, an interpretation that opposed established scientific knowledge to allow yet more 'non' evidence to exist against David where in fact none existed. The same officer anticipating he would be believed that something as soft and with the pliable texture of skin actually sharpened definition under pressure rather that doing the opposite (and normal) thing - flattening.
But just on these points, of liberties taken from evidence that didn't exist, was omitted, or hidden in every case (and there are scores in the final total) the net result worked against David. Everything worked against David, leaving the inevitable conclusion that the case against David Bain was orchestrated at every point. How did this happen just in the last couple of years in a Country where when some things are finally addressed there is always comment that the situation has moved on from there and the same mistakes wouldn't be made again? Why do we see here a repeat of the same old same old and anticipate the obligatory explanations that things have improved. It was less than 2 years ago that Jones repeated his nonsense evidence in a belligerent way that showed he had lost sight of his need to be objective and that his purpose was to serve Justice not to endeavour to manipulate it.
Less that 2 years ago much information became available in various forums, a number of peer-reviewed studies over thousands of suicide deaths by firearms. Although the results varied, the average finding would be around only a 5% chance that any fingerprints of the suicidee are found on the firearm. Or a 95% chance that none would be found on the firearm, this from studies that go back decades, not months or years but decades. But what happened in the case 'against' David?
In the case against David it was offered as 'proof' of his guilt that the 95% chance that his father's fingerprints were not able to be determined as being on the rifle (though may have been among the prints unable to be determined as belonging to Robin - and therefore not David's.) So somehow nothing, a 95% chance of nothing compared to a 5% chance of it being somehow 'evidence' was immediately weighed against David by inference by the Prosecution and by 'proof' from the hate-siters.
Moving onto the behaviour of a couple of the hate-siters in particular, Stockdale, no less than an administrator of a hate-site, repeated 1000s of times that the rifle had been wiped down for prints never offering a satisfactory answer of how the rifle if wiped down still retained prints. He never missed a beat on it, kept repeating the same story.. rifle wiped down, rifle wiped down... until it became a 'cyber fact.' I'll return to Stockdale in a minute but first will address the similar hate-message from one his cohorts Ralph Taylor.
Ralph Taylor liked to make fun of the idea that Robin had shot himself 'got up' and wiped the rifle down after he was dead. This amazing 'fact' culminated all the absurdity that Taylor claimed was part of David's defence. Of course nobody contended that Robin wiped the rifle down, the Crown contended David did but had only opposing proof that he had. Fast forward to Coroner Tim Scott decision delivered in a case where a husband shot his wife and fatherinlaw in Fielding last August. He concluded the differing ranges of the shots pointed to the husband Desmond Winnie as the killer. He also described how there were no fingerprints on the rifle, found between Winnie's legs, a feature he said that was not uncommon.
He went onto say 'It may have been that the offender wore gloves or wiped the firearm clean. I'm satisfied that....finding a firearm without any prints is not necessarily indicative of anything sinister,' he said. 'It may have related to the condition of the firearm or the fact that the firearm had to be handled by the police after the deaths. It may have related to the packaging of the firearm.'
Some remarkable similarities between Mr Scott's finding and aspects of the Bain case, no fingerprints, offender wearing gloves or wiping the rifle clean but which serve the unavoidable concerns of the prosecution of David Bain and the efforts made to re-manufacture evidence or lack of evidence as being some how conclusive in the failed case.
Back to Stockdale in concluding this piece, Stockdale's other pet lies were, that there was no blood found inside the barrel - although he eventually backed off from that, but didn't note the obvious result (note Scott's conclusion about the differing ranges of shots in the Fielding case,) also that David was not stripped searched and so the scratches to his chest were not found or seen by anybody on the morning of the murders but were (according to Stockdale) still there. Stockdale's claims (mimicking the Crowns) that David went out of his way to be 'seen' on the paper run to some how prove that he did the paper run when in fact the papers in the boxes were absolute proof of that - something Stockdale would later put down to his belief David needing to be seen could somehow related to his (David's) acting skills.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
New development from the hate-sites: allegation of Judicial collusion
ro42 wrote:
The judge has given permission for you to copy and publish this information on TradeMe message boards? I don't believe you.
The judge is on our side, he's a mate of McNeishes, and he wanted Buckley's evidence in court, why wouldn't he help us, he knows who is guilty I am sure of that.
Quotesophier8 (0 ) 7:26 pm, Sat 11 Sep #27131
So a quick rehash. To this point from the hate-sites we've have the following known activities.
Witness stalking: Stockdale, recorded in his own words.
Jury stalking: Purkiss, Stockdale and others recorded in their own words.
Stalking and threatening: Stockdale, D Cameron, O Brien, Christine Williams and at least six others who have already been named.
Tampering with names on the 'petition' sweetad, by her 'revelation' that a TM posters name 'happened' to be on the petition.
Allegations of perjury - many names recorded on this.
Defamation: a too extensive list to mention here.
Defamatory harassment: a too extensive list to mention here.
Newest activities: 1)illegally distributing a trial transcript 2)claims of collusion between the hate-sites and a High Court Judge, with the assertion that the Judge is/was sympathetic to the persecutor's efforts of the hate-sites.
Some readers may be aware that information regarding the hate-sites has been forwarded to the MOJ. This newest information, and the identities of posters who colluded in it's release into the pubic record will be going both to the Department of Courts through the Registrar of the ChCh High Court and additionally to the Minister in charge of the Courts. Good luck to those involved, you've elevated yourselves from being criminal stalkers to being in Contempt of Court.
The judge has given permission for you to copy and publish this information on TradeMe message boards? I don't believe you.
The judge is on our side, he's a mate of McNeishes, and he wanted Buckley's evidence in court, why wouldn't he help us, he knows who is guilty I am sure of that.
Quotesophier8 (0 ) 7:26 pm, Sat 11 Sep #27131
So a quick rehash. To this point from the hate-sites we've have the following known activities.
Witness stalking: Stockdale, recorded in his own words.
Jury stalking: Purkiss, Stockdale and others recorded in their own words.
Stalking and threatening: Stockdale, D Cameron, O Brien, Christine Williams and at least six others who have already been named.
Tampering with names on the 'petition' sweetad, by her 'revelation' that a TM posters name 'happened' to be on the petition.
Allegations of perjury - many names recorded on this.
Defamation: a too extensive list to mention here.
Defamatory harassment: a too extensive list to mention here.
Newest activities: 1)illegally distributing a trial transcript 2)claims of collusion between the hate-sites and a High Court Judge, with the assertion that the Judge is/was sympathetic to the persecutor's efforts of the hate-sites.
Some readers may be aware that information regarding the hate-sites has been forwarded to the MOJ. This newest information, and the identities of posters who colluded in it's release into the pubic record will be going both to the Department of Courts through the Registrar of the ChCh High Court and additionally to the Minister in charge of the Courts. Good luck to those involved, you've elevated yourselves from being criminal stalkers to being in Contempt of Court.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Reader asked
Reader said...
So what are the motives of the stalkers, the persecutors? Why do they do what they do? Who are they? What do they have to gain? A poster on TradeMe has just pointed out that their professed reasons don't tally with the focus on Robin Bain alone. So who are these people, what have they got to gain from David being thought guilty by the public? Who can perceive themselves damaged by Robin's guilt? What are their connections with the case?
I think these are among the most interesting questions of all. After the evidence has been done to death, when a result has been reached that will never be changed the persecutors remain. Who are they you ask, perhaps they are those that want misery, to have something external from themselves that will never be resolved, in the same way their own bitterness will never be resolved, but which might, by some extension into a fantasy shield them from that they wish to ignore. I can feel sorry for them on the one hand, and would completely feel so if they did not need to build their own misery into something they need to off-load onto others. I remember from long ago the story of the Apache who died silently in war so as not to betray some advantage to an enemy. From that story I recall a particular strength to not pass one's own shortcomings, failures or inadequacies to others in anyway, but particularly not so by loading them onto a victim of injustice.
So what are the motives of the stalkers, the persecutors? Why do they do what they do? Who are they? What do they have to gain? A poster on TradeMe has just pointed out that their professed reasons don't tally with the focus on Robin Bain alone. So who are these people, what have they got to gain from David being thought guilty by the public? Who can perceive themselves damaged by Robin's guilt? What are their connections with the case?
I think these are among the most interesting questions of all. After the evidence has been done to death, when a result has been reached that will never be changed the persecutors remain. Who are they you ask, perhaps they are those that want misery, to have something external from themselves that will never be resolved, in the same way their own bitterness will never be resolved, but which might, by some extension into a fantasy shield them from that they wish to ignore. I can feel sorry for them on the one hand, and would completely feel so if they did not need to build their own misery into something they need to off-load onto others. I remember from long ago the story of the Apache who died silently in war so as not to betray some advantage to an enemy. From that story I recall a particular strength to not pass one's own shortcomings, failures or inadequacies to others in anyway, but particularly not so by loading them onto a victim of injustice.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Poetry for the Dead
Late last night a 'look at me' poster on TM, (no not nina_concertina but another rivalling for the spot) 'sweet_ad' posted poems for the dead Bains on TM no doubt in an emotional wrench. Sweet_ad, some may remember, is the person who politicised the recent anniversary of the Bain deaths by inviting the press and running advertisements for others to attend what for most would be a very personal, private situation. Alas, only sweet_ad and one reporter arrived. I'm sure sweet_ad may have mustered a few tears and been able to manage a 'woe is me' tearful look for the camera but to this point the picture, if there was one, hasn't been published.
But sweet_ad is a little more interesting than that. She is currently contesting with her sister as to who it was that actually knew the Bain family. Messy stuff suitable for a hate-site which is exactly where the comments were published. Not to be out done the sister 'wrote' a confession of sorts allegedly made by Laniet to one half of the sisters. The confession was smugly gathered and hidden in the inner sanctums of one of the sites for only the true nutters to see and drool over. There was no questions raised about its authenticity because it said exactly what the hate-sites wanted. No questions were asked about the tone of the confession or the extraction technique and language of the interviewer who at the time was a school girl. Of course it was never sent to the police, or if it was, there may have been some direction from the police suggesting the writer seek medical help.
Meanwhile, Kent tossing and turning about at night, wondering why he had changed from a white knight to something looking very similar to the lead protagonist in the psycho movie, had an idea to save his bacon. He published the 'confession' for public view. When I heard about it I wrote to him, explaining that publishing or republishing defamatory material shared equal liability for either publisher. I'm not sure whether kenty boy understood that given his current desperation and wilting bravado. This week from what I understand he gets an updated statement of claim included more citations against he and his erstwhile comrade in woe Vic.
Pathetic as it may be to watch, sweet_ad's behaviour shows the prevailing mindset of the hate-siters, all knowing and driven by grief at what is wrong in the world, being the only ones able to see and closing ranks against those that cannot, sharing together in their righteousness and silent on one anothers law-breaking. Does the cybermedia need this? My answer is no. I say these people feed off one another and from cues from the press or anything that can be misconstrued to support their hate campaigns.
I may post my most recent letter to Kent about publishing the 'confession' later, it bounced back, but clearly not before Kent had read or copied it. I know this because his pal supergoof let it slip on TM that I (nos) was stalking kent again. The 'first' time being the letters already published here.
But sweet_ad is a little more interesting than that. She is currently contesting with her sister as to who it was that actually knew the Bain family. Messy stuff suitable for a hate-site which is exactly where the comments were published. Not to be out done the sister 'wrote' a confession of sorts allegedly made by Laniet to one half of the sisters. The confession was smugly gathered and hidden in the inner sanctums of one of the sites for only the true nutters to see and drool over. There was no questions raised about its authenticity because it said exactly what the hate-sites wanted. No questions were asked about the tone of the confession or the extraction technique and language of the interviewer who at the time was a school girl. Of course it was never sent to the police, or if it was, there may have been some direction from the police suggesting the writer seek medical help.
Meanwhile, Kent tossing and turning about at night, wondering why he had changed from a white knight to something looking very similar to the lead protagonist in the psycho movie, had an idea to save his bacon. He published the 'confession' for public view. When I heard about it I wrote to him, explaining that publishing or republishing defamatory material shared equal liability for either publisher. I'm not sure whether kenty boy understood that given his current desperation and wilting bravado. This week from what I understand he gets an updated statement of claim included more citations against he and his erstwhile comrade in woe Vic.
Pathetic as it may be to watch, sweet_ad's behaviour shows the prevailing mindset of the hate-siters, all knowing and driven by grief at what is wrong in the world, being the only ones able to see and closing ranks against those that cannot, sharing together in their righteousness and silent on one anothers law-breaking. Does the cybermedia need this? My answer is no. I say these people feed off one another and from cues from the press or anything that can be misconstrued to support their hate campaigns.
I may post my most recent letter to Kent about publishing the 'confession' later, it bounced back, but clearly not before Kent had read or copied it. I know this because his pal supergoof let it slip on TM that I (nos) was stalking kent again. The 'first' time being the letters already published here.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Twisting by the Pool
I'd like to talk about the activities of some ex and current Trade Me Posters. Those I use to call the twisted sisters because of the way I felt they twisted everything. Generally they seemed a lonely lot with what I'd call a unhealthy interest in other people's lives along with an inflated view of themselves and where they sit in the world.
It must be a personality type that drew them together, that some how they were better people, better informed. In other words abundantly gifted with right. My experience with people that are unable or unwilling to challenge themselves is that they become patronising and impatient with others, but worse they can reach a point where they feel justified in doing or saying things that are just plain wrong. So it was/is with the sisters, nina_s (aka slimdusty2, jane jetson,) golfergold, Kalnovitch (aka laddiefatcat.)
Golfergold always took an unhealthy interest in other poster's families, trolling and searching for information. She is also the host of a hate-site who crossed over to become a stalker, posting the identities of anonymous posters, details about them and their families. In one case this led to threatening phone calls, gravely concerning and frightening her target. She did this in tandem with others, primarily a person called dustproof, another called misspw (aka millie 231) and kalnovitch and her new but barely disguised identity of laddiefatcat, luckytrader and others. For those of you that may not know stalking and harassment in cyberspace is included as an offence under The Harassment Act 1997 and specifically it can become a criminal offence under s6(2)a. This state of mind of these "sisters' portrays the 'positive' feeling of being right or righteous thus 'allowiing' law-breaking on real people and their families. Incidentally, I can prove all of this and it's repetitive nature.
There are a number of other erstwhile individuals who have done similar things, Mike Stockdale (superslueth) being one who has stalked and outed on the boards, but of greater concern approached witnesses who gave evidence in The Bain case. He, and his fellow hate-siters from JFRB and Counterspin have also stalked details of the Christchurch jury and it would appear have approached or know at least one member of that jury. These people don't afford anyone scanctity in pursuit of their 'cause,' they're driven by being 'right' and 'knowing' things, and knowing what lesser mortals even 'think.'
I'm one of a host of people who have been keeping files on these people. My first file was titled 'nina_s defamation.' Nina_s, (an entirely fictional name of course,) had a particular pendant for defaming Joe Karam and continued on until the whiff of law suits filled the air afterwhich she disappeared for a while and came back in a 'reformed' state. She also attacked trial witnesses and the jury at length, she was 'mightier and holier than thou' on a great level. However it is not known to me that she ever stalked or outed anyone deliberately apart from one ocassion when somebody was outed in a situation she knew was untrue and she let it stand by virtue of her silence, so it was an outing by omission of people with fictional names outing real people who suffer harm as a result.
At their height of power (or ignorance) these posters had somehow convinced TM that they could be defamed or insulted as fictional people in cyberspace while going about defaming real people. One of nina's closest allies was obook (rodney osook) who along with Nina took great pleasure in ridiculing the ChCh jury and several expert witnesses. One witness became 'a dancing bear' who 'had' to have Joe Karam's assistance to show Robin Bain's suicide. They completely overlooked the fact that the witness wore a skull cap to prove the trajectory of Robin's fatal shot into his own head. They made great purchase out of this, trying seemingly to destroy the whole case against Robin by this single event. Physically it is impossible single-handedly to feed a rifle barrel onto a steel rod of the length that was part of the skull cap when the cap was being worn, of course Robin didn't wear a skull cap. He merely needed to hold the rifle in a right hand dominant position and lean his head against the barrel. Many people who may have followed the case will know all of this, but some may not know (something osook and nina never revealed in their defamatory comments of Karam and others) that the skull cap was a crown exhibit by which the defence using the crown's own display of the correct trajectory showed Robin's suicide. I guess nina and osook thought they had a right to ignore that and make purchase out of situation where they hid the truth.
I may talk more about this later. But I will certainly however write about The Harassment Act 1997 and how it can be used for the benefit of any who may read this and who might have been in a similar situation of being stalked in the past or who may encounter cyber-stalking in the future. I also hope to write about what I think is a new phenomenon in law by which a new breach of harassment and defamation law prevails, something I refer to as 'defamatory harassment.'
Postscript. Someone has rightfully pointed out to me that I should note that The Harassment Act 1997 is a New Zealand Act of Law, which I duely record here.
It must be a personality type that drew them together, that some how they were better people, better informed. In other words abundantly gifted with right. My experience with people that are unable or unwilling to challenge themselves is that they become patronising and impatient with others, but worse they can reach a point where they feel justified in doing or saying things that are just plain wrong. So it was/is with the sisters, nina_s (aka slimdusty2, jane jetson,) golfergold, Kalnovitch (aka laddiefatcat.)
Golfergold always took an unhealthy interest in other poster's families, trolling and searching for information. She is also the host of a hate-site who crossed over to become a stalker, posting the identities of anonymous posters, details about them and their families. In one case this led to threatening phone calls, gravely concerning and frightening her target. She did this in tandem with others, primarily a person called dustproof, another called misspw (aka millie 231) and kalnovitch and her new but barely disguised identity of laddiefatcat, luckytrader and others. For those of you that may not know stalking and harassment in cyberspace is included as an offence under The Harassment Act 1997 and specifically it can become a criminal offence under s6(2)a. This state of mind of these "sisters' portrays the 'positive' feeling of being right or righteous thus 'allowiing' law-breaking on real people and their families. Incidentally, I can prove all of this and it's repetitive nature.
There are a number of other erstwhile individuals who have done similar things, Mike Stockdale (superslueth) being one who has stalked and outed on the boards, but of greater concern approached witnesses who gave evidence in The Bain case. He, and his fellow hate-siters from JFRB and Counterspin have also stalked details of the Christchurch jury and it would appear have approached or know at least one member of that jury. These people don't afford anyone scanctity in pursuit of their 'cause,' they're driven by being 'right' and 'knowing' things, and knowing what lesser mortals even 'think.'
I'm one of a host of people who have been keeping files on these people. My first file was titled 'nina_s defamation.' Nina_s, (an entirely fictional name of course,) had a particular pendant for defaming Joe Karam and continued on until the whiff of law suits filled the air afterwhich she disappeared for a while and came back in a 'reformed' state. She also attacked trial witnesses and the jury at length, she was 'mightier and holier than thou' on a great level. However it is not known to me that she ever stalked or outed anyone deliberately apart from one ocassion when somebody was outed in a situation she knew was untrue and she let it stand by virtue of her silence, so it was an outing by omission of people with fictional names outing real people who suffer harm as a result.
At their height of power (or ignorance) these posters had somehow convinced TM that they could be defamed or insulted as fictional people in cyberspace while going about defaming real people. One of nina's closest allies was obook (rodney osook) who along with Nina took great pleasure in ridiculing the ChCh jury and several expert witnesses. One witness became 'a dancing bear' who 'had' to have Joe Karam's assistance to show Robin Bain's suicide. They completely overlooked the fact that the witness wore a skull cap to prove the trajectory of Robin's fatal shot into his own head. They made great purchase out of this, trying seemingly to destroy the whole case against Robin by this single event. Physically it is impossible single-handedly to feed a rifle barrel onto a steel rod of the length that was part of the skull cap when the cap was being worn, of course Robin didn't wear a skull cap. He merely needed to hold the rifle in a right hand dominant position and lean his head against the barrel. Many people who may have followed the case will know all of this, but some may not know (something osook and nina never revealed in their defamatory comments of Karam and others) that the skull cap was a crown exhibit by which the defence using the crown's own display of the correct trajectory showed Robin's suicide. I guess nina and osook thought they had a right to ignore that and make purchase out of situation where they hid the truth.
I may talk more about this later. But I will certainly however write about The Harassment Act 1997 and how it can be used for the benefit of any who may read this and who might have been in a similar situation of being stalked in the past or who may encounter cyber-stalking in the future. I also hope to write about what I think is a new phenomenon in law by which a new breach of harassment and defamation law prevails, something I refer to as 'defamatory harassment.'
Postscript. Someone has rightfully pointed out to me that I should note that The Harassment Act 1997 is a New Zealand Act of Law, which I duely record here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)