The bewildering logic of a hate-siter.

Sent on from a correspondent. A person called donalddob in an attack against Justice Binnie on the Counterspin Hate-Site. 'dob' suggests Ian Binnie made some sort of quick decision because of financial constraints - or in other words simply believes there is no merit to his report. Interestingly elsewhere in the 'article' that he has written On Counterspin he muses that Binnie should have been double checking forensic evidence against Robin that was presented by the defence. That in itself shows how far from the mark these nutters are. In one breath they repeat the mantra 'no evidence against Robin' then in the next argue that the evidence that doesn't exist in their minds should nevertheless be 'double checked' by Binnie. Not only that, but they fail to realise that a prosecution relies on the evidence from the Crown and of course therefore if it fails to reach the required standard the charges are not sustained and are rejected. Donbob, whoever he is in his wretchedly weak mind, accepts without realising it perhaps, that the case against David doesn't, and never did stack up, so wants the defence evidence reviewed. I know it must hurt you to think donalddob, it must be very painful indeed, but talk to your psychiatrist about this. Explain to him that you are not really insane because the proof of your insanity while compelling, was not as compelling as your defence - proving your insanity. Good work bob. So follows...

I imagined a scientific experiment that involved the following.

Find a person who has dirt in the creases of their hands. Photograph the dirt in the creases. Get this person to wear blood-soaked opera gloves and wrestle with another person for 10 seconds. Make them take the gloves off. Make them handle a blood smeared rifle. Using a syringe and needle, injects speck of blood onto thumbs and fingers. Photograph the  hands again. Give the person cloth towels, paper towels, soap and a washbasin offering both hot and cold water. Give the person 10 minutes to remove the blood stains without removing the dirt in the creases of the hands, and without removing the specks of blood. Then get them to changes clothes, type a computer message, and handle a blood smeared rifle. Take another set of photographs of the hands. Compare the before/after state of the dirt in the creases. Does dirt dissolve in blood?

Above we get the chance to look at dumbbob's imagination, and what an imagination it is captured in time as approximately 20 years out of date. As most people now know the rifle wasn't smeared in blood but Robin's hands, his palms in particular were. The very fact of that is why David Bain should never have been charged because it was his father found beside the suicide weapon with an abundance of forensic evidence to show he was the only one present when he despatched himself with a contact shot to his left temple, a shot that rose rather than fell and which didn't exit his skull - despite our Appeal Court  claiming that it did. As for the specks of blood on Robin's hands, apparently dumbdod thinks they should have been washed off even before they arrived there on Robin's hands, at the point of his suicide. Arguing that the blood spots should have been washed off is another concession of Robin Bain as the killer from the bewildered 'dob.' 'dob' asks gleefully 'does dirt dissolve in blood,' well in the case of Dear daddy it didn't dob - that's why the smears remained and why there were photographed, photographs shown to the second Jury.

dumbbob still attempts to claim that Robin's palms were blood free but dirty, it would have been interesting if they were blood free, but it still wouldn't have disproved his suicide. Additionally, the washing of Robin's hands, as described by dumbbob didn't remove the ingrained dirt, the blood smears nor the red material found under his nails, nor did it remove the bite marks and other cuts and contusions to his hands.

Unfortunately, dumbob, Bill Rodie and others haven't yet realised that the 'evidence' they present against Binnie's apparent findings, against David and by proxy therefore against the reputation of Joe Karam, is pure defamation for which, like Parker and Purkiss, they may yet be sued. All the tired arguments about free speech do not overcome the truth, the truth is that Robin Bain died with blood smears on his hands, despite as dumbbob says, trying to wash them off. Another truth is that Rodie and others have persecuted Karam and Bain for years with not only omissions, but as in this case with blatant lies.

Kent Parker - no defence.

Well, that's sorted out, that there was defamation and Parker has provided no defence against it. So the question is whether Parker is responsible for what he has published and the Judge has ordered that is for a Jury to decide.

Of course in considering that will be the nature of Parker's site, its bias against Karam etc. It's plain intention to continually misrepresenting facts and blame Karam for doing that instead. But what I have been talking about is the continued defamation, the continuing defamation Parker's site is full of it - most on public display showing his distorted and one sided views. Kent isn't listening so here's something from a lawyer to a client in another High Court decision regarding defamation..Hallet v Williams


'I appeared in Court in the defamation case yesterday [3 May]. In accordance with your instructions I applied for an adjournment. This was opposed with some vigour by Peter Williams who prepared and submitted a substantial document. He wanted the application for adjournment rejected and the hearing to proceed. I argued that – effectively – he was asking for the statement of defence to be struck out as he would be denying you the opportunity to present a defence. He put some pressure on the court. The Judge granted your application for an adjournment. He said it would be as short an adjournment as possible. Mr Williams wanted a date in May. It seems that is not possible and the earliest date we will be able to get will be in August. No date is set at this stage. If some other case falls over in the meantime this case might be put in its place. Mr Williams is not happy about everything concerned with this case and he has complained to the court that you continue to defame him. You may not get a Christmas card from him this year. I will let you know as soon as I get a new date for the defamation hearing. At this stage I am not recorded as counsel in the summary judgment matter [unpaid Architecture fee].'

To repeat 'Mr Williams is not happy about everything concerned with this case and he has complained to the court that you continue to defame him.'

That might sink in with Kent sometime.

Now, I wonder how the owners of other hate-site are feeling, particularly Annette Curran. I wonder how all the defamatory contributors are feeling knowing that according to last Friday's judgement they could be in line for defamation charges and, like Kent, have no defence - other than trying to blame the site owners that there was some binding or implied contract that Kent would, as he has to anyway, take the blame as a publisher but not (unfortunately for the defamatory rats) that the defamatory posts of others belonged to them first of all and Kent secondly.

Mike Stockdale - leaking information, again....

I think it is okay to reprint the following which was sent as a comment on the post 'Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.' Somebody has obviously picked it up off the internet and is not relevant to the case against Stockdale and others - apart from showing how deceitful Mike Stockdale, hate-site adminstrator, is...

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.":

What on earth next do these two not realise the matter is all over and their spin on events will be only that, SPIN.

Mike and Paul Warner Dobson are now friends.
· Add Paul as Friend
Paul Warner Dobson
Hi there. Thanks for adding me. One project I have been planning for a while is to write a film about the Bain Murders. I propose calling it '65 Every Street' and I believe it would be a good way of presenting the entire story for people to decide for themselves. Essentially there would be a different story going on and the murders are the background. I am thinking a Journalist and Lawyer who have recently broken up. The Lawyer is forced to take one side of the story while the Journalist is free to decide for herself upon what she sees and finds out. The Lawyer doesn't care about the truth but is simply being paid to win a case. While I have sorted out the main facts pretty well, I would need to make sure the Lawyer character could not be confused with a real character, as would the journalist. Are you familiar with any actual lawyers involved and their conduct of the trial? The story I suppose would be presented as half a court room drama with major 'flash backs' to actual seen. Naturally I would present what I might or might not think about it but present the facts and allow the viewer to decide. By keeping scrupulously to the actual facts I am sure legal action would be impossible. I also understand there are more facts that can be presented in a film than were presented in the actual court room. I am currently busy of something else, but when finished would like to start this and would be interested in finding an expert to check facts with. I understand you are such an expert? Woiuld you like to check my facts?
May 19 at 3:30pm
Mike Stockdale
Hullo Paul.I sort of like to think I am an expert,but I am still learning things.But the good part of being in a group is that you have a number of "experts" which means if there is something you don't know ,somebody else probably will.I do have a copy of the retrial transcript[I am not supposed to have it,but it was put up on a website for a couple of days and I managed to copy it down,along with quite a few other people,I might add.]I don't know any of the lawyers who were at the retrial,but I have spoken on the phone to ex detective Weir a few times.He has written a book,but he can't get it published,the would be publishers have told him that it can't be published until after the compensation claim is settled ,one way or the other.And that could be years away.But I would be quite happy to try and answer any questions,if they are to do with the evidence I reckon I would probably know as much as anyone.And because I have the transcript I do know how the lawyers operated.So don't hesitate to ask me anything,I am a retired bloke with plenty of time on my hands,I have sort of made the Bain case my hobby,I don't have any other hobbies.
May 19 at 3:50pm

I suspect this could be a letter to Stockdale by someone wanting to stroke his ego and get some info, more or less a 'staged' exchange as the writer would appear to know that Stockdale has an inflated ego problem. Either a staged event or one moron attracted to another moron - who knows.
The intersting things however are how Stockdale speaks freely about other matters which he has publicly lied about. Note, the claim by Stockdale about the trial transcript, which begs the question why he continued to lie about so many details of the trial when he knew the truth. And perhaps we read the true story about Milton Weirs book despite the claims made by Stockdale and Melanie White, another hate-site adminstrator. Of course Mike opens with the particularly modest statement.. 'I sort of like to think I am an expert' and among other things the omniscient statement 'And because I have the transcript I do know how the lawyers operated.'
Stockdale claims that 'the good part of being in a group is that you have a number of "experts" which all sounds very grand but perhaps he should have acknowledged the group are not so much experts because they've been caught stalking the Jury, misusing public message boards, intimidating and stalking members of the public - but perhaps he meant experts at being morons and getting caught.

Just on the first letter above, I find it hard to reconcile that anyone would imagine that the proposed title of a movie would be '65 Every Street' it beggars belief but groper Stockdale swallowed it, much like he swallowed the story (perhaps invented it, that David wasn't stripped searched on the morning of the murders) and perhaps the humdinger of them all - that David sought to be seen delivering papers so that people would know they (the papers) were actually in their letter boxes, Stockdale explained that this was because David was an 'actor' and we can assume (as with dumbo Stockdale and his girlfriends) that David would have needed to be seen delivering because the papers themselves were not testament to their delivery. Well, yes, precisely. The papers might have been delivered by another paper boy who'd strayed from his round, or been delivered by someone who for a perfectly reasonable reason that only dimwits would understand - good work Mike.

Anyway thanks to who ever sent this on, and it may also give anyone reading this an idea of the content and incriminating statements Stockdale forwarded to the District Court to 'prove' he isn't a stalker. There, there Mike. As the old saying goes ...'once a moron, always a moron.'