maybe even in NZ. Perhaps somebody knows, but one of the three are using the Court Process to continue the harassment and stalking. It's the old 'prove you're not a stalker by stalking.'
Interestingly, it may be the precursor of a heap of information coming to light, the Trojan Horse into the heart of the hate-siter's stalking and threatening. It seems there is no steady hand at the tiller, panic reigns.
Showing posts with label nz hate-sites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nz hate-sites. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Who would you believe, a spinner whose claim
to fame is that she was best buddies with Laniet Bain, despite the spinner's own sister saying that was a lie and it was actually she, the sister, that had been friends with Laniet. Who would you believe, a spinner who wrote a 'confession' so full of inconsistencies and mixed language of both a child and an experienced adult that the 'confession' read like something written by a psychologist evoking language and practice of the 90s? Who would you believe, somebody who put on a 'grave side' show as a memorial for the Bains but nobody turned up except the spinner and a photographer who fell asleep waiting for the crowd that never arrived?
Would you believe the person that wrote this....
cybernana wrote:
Right....well, we will find out more today, won't we? I must admit, I am looking forward to hearing more on nos's blog later. Either they were banned from here, and you told a lie, or they had their posts removed voluntarily knowing there was evidence against them contained in their posts. Either way, they are gone. Hahaha.
Wrong on both counts. Have you not heard of TEMPORARY SUSPENSION while things are being sorted? And remember, he who laughs, or she, laughs last.
Quote
sweet_ad (185 ) 11:14 am, Mon 21 Mar #31710
Or would you believe a spokesperson for TM who said the dreadful 3 of today (and therefore utimately the dreaded others named in the defamation case) were on their own.
I recall writing about this earlier when the hate-siters were going on about 'freedom of speech' and TM sticking up for the hate-siters rights. Well, I'm telling you to suck kumara like you were told over a year ago, so who would believe? Looks like some motor mouth defamers might be getting a call - but don't believe me.
Would you believe the person that wrote this....
cybernana wrote:
Right....well, we will find out more today, won't we? I must admit, I am looking forward to hearing more on nos's blog later. Either they were banned from here, and you told a lie, or they had their posts removed voluntarily knowing there was evidence against them contained in their posts. Either way, they are gone. Hahaha.
Wrong on both counts. Have you not heard of TEMPORARY SUSPENSION while things are being sorted? And remember, he who laughs, or she, laughs last.
Quote
sweet_ad (185 ) 11:14 am, Mon 21 Mar #31710
Or would you believe a spokesperson for TM who said the dreadful 3 of today (and therefore utimately the dreaded others named in the defamation case) were on their own.
I recall writing about this earlier when the hate-siters were going on about 'freedom of speech' and TM sticking up for the hate-siters rights. Well, I'm telling you to suck kumara like you were told over a year ago, so who would believe? Looks like some motor mouth defamers might be getting a call - but don't believe me.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
ah, the hate-sites stir. Signs of distress, desperation
that they and their message is not understood.
An example...
In memory of Supersleuth:
Whose bloody fingerprints were found on the rifle? Not Robin's. Whose socks had blood on them? Not Robin's. Whose clothing had Stephen's blood on it? Not Robin's. Who had been wearing the broken glasses? Not Robin. Who had great memory lapses? Not Robin. Who stood to gain financially from the deaths? Not Robin.
Who does the forensic evidence point to? Not Robin.
Quote
jmhb51 (1 ) 2:59 pm, Sun 20 Mar #31597
All these years and still trying to lie to find a way out and protect the old man.
Of course there was over a 93% chance that Robin's prints would not be on the rifle.
David's prints on his OWN rifle were in a carrying position and not in blood as this liar above well knows.
David had a minor spot of aged blood on his clothes, yet the blood from Stephen was sprayed extensively throughout the room, sprayed.
The broken glasses; there was no evidence they were worn by anybody on the morning of the killings, there was no blood on them despite the one lens being 'found' in Stephen's room where there was blood spray even on the walls.
Memory lapses as this hate-siter puts it, are not evidence of murder, however there was medical evidence which offered an explanation as to the effects of malaria. Of course we don't know if Robin also had memory lapses, but we do know he was angry, unkempt, alienated from his family and a huntsman experienced in blood sports.
Who stood to gain from the financially from the deaths? Well to this point only the extended family.
Who did the forensic evidence point to? Well, only Robin right down to his brain matter being found inside the rifle barrel, the rising trajectory shot, the un-excluded blood spray across the floor of the lounge and reaching the curtains, the simple suicide technique, the blood spray across his shoe occluded from being from his own wound - insurmountable proof unpalatable to the liars and twisters of the truth as this person above.
A message for Ralph Taylor, Black and others the clock is ticking down on the count when your lies, and deliberate spreading of rumour to incite hatred and contempt for the Justice system, persecution and stalking of others is over in cyberspace. Try taking your hate-message elsewhere and see how you go, and note you are being taken to account.
But I'd only be joking wouldn't I? Like I was about the blood in the rifle and the absence of injuries to David as determined by his strip search that day by the Police surgeon. Justice prevailed despite the efforts of your hate-sites and now your hate-sites are being looked at, I bet you can't wait.
An example...
In memory of Supersleuth:
Whose bloody fingerprints were found on the rifle? Not Robin's. Whose socks had blood on them? Not Robin's. Whose clothing had Stephen's blood on it? Not Robin's. Who had been wearing the broken glasses? Not Robin. Who had great memory lapses? Not Robin. Who stood to gain financially from the deaths? Not Robin.
Who does the forensic evidence point to? Not Robin.
Quote
jmhb51 (1 ) 2:59 pm, Sun 20 Mar #31597
All these years and still trying to lie to find a way out and protect the old man.
Of course there was over a 93% chance that Robin's prints would not be on the rifle.
David's prints on his OWN rifle were in a carrying position and not in blood as this liar above well knows.
David had a minor spot of aged blood on his clothes, yet the blood from Stephen was sprayed extensively throughout the room, sprayed.
The broken glasses; there was no evidence they were worn by anybody on the morning of the killings, there was no blood on them despite the one lens being 'found' in Stephen's room where there was blood spray even on the walls.
Memory lapses as this hate-siter puts it, are not evidence of murder, however there was medical evidence which offered an explanation as to the effects of malaria. Of course we don't know if Robin also had memory lapses, but we do know he was angry, unkempt, alienated from his family and a huntsman experienced in blood sports.
Who stood to gain from the financially from the deaths? Well to this point only the extended family.
Who did the forensic evidence point to? Well, only Robin right down to his brain matter being found inside the rifle barrel, the rising trajectory shot, the un-excluded blood spray across the floor of the lounge and reaching the curtains, the simple suicide technique, the blood spray across his shoe occluded from being from his own wound - insurmountable proof unpalatable to the liars and twisters of the truth as this person above.
A message for Ralph Taylor, Black and others the clock is ticking down on the count when your lies, and deliberate spreading of rumour to incite hatred and contempt for the Justice system, persecution and stalking of others is over in cyberspace. Try taking your hate-message elsewhere and see how you go, and note you are being taken to account.
But I'd only be joking wouldn't I? Like I was about the blood in the rifle and the absence of injuries to David as determined by his strip search that day by the Police surgeon. Justice prevailed despite the efforts of your hate-sites and now your hate-sites are being looked at, I bet you can't wait.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Where are they now?
Those ones that beat their chests and postured,
the hate-filled ones.
Where are they now, when the gauntlet is
picked up, steady and clear.
Where must they hide
from their own coward words?
the hate-filled ones.
Where are they now, when the gauntlet is
picked up, steady and clear.
Where must they hide
from their own coward words?
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The question from the so desperate to be liked sweetad.
You know the person. Organised the media to publicise the anniversary of the Bain deaths, but she was the only one that turned up. She has taken 'possession' of the dead family yet it is her sister that claimed to know them and not this moron sweetad, desperate for a bloke or blokette - anyone will do. She called Kent Poop pants the messiah. Her question....
Hello Pro, Hello Cybernana, how lovely that you are back.
You think you are so clever dont you. Oh dear. What one will do when they are bored.
So what I would like to know, why does the David Bain case interest you so much? What have you to gain? Why do you go to so much trouble to check out message boards, copy and paste and feed back the knowledge in hopes of getting people banned or sued. I mean, why? Why does it concern you? Why is it your business?
Do you know David Bain? I recall asking that question and the reply was no. Do you know Joe Karam? From what I can gather the inference was no.
So why then?
Quotesweet_ad (133 ) 4:52 pm, Sat 9 Oct #28155
I can only answer for my self, unlike you I don't deign myself important enough to speak for others, particularly (and unlike you) those I don't know.
The David Bain case interests me so much because he was framed, the public were sold an unrealistic, improbable story and some swallowed, gropers like you and Christine Williams.
The trouble I (we) go to is to expose you people for the rotten persecutors you are. Not only have you attacked people you don't know but also their families. You lie and scheme in a manner below even the most cold hearted, you suck big time. You think you have a right to stalk people, even a Jury and witnesses, your persecution knows no limits, anybody who realises what you embody as people become your enemy. You are hateful and sick. But most of all you are cowardly, weak and cowardly picking on those you imagine can't fight back, those you imagine lesser than you. You are true, gutless cowards.
But today there is something to celebrate, that you idiots exposed yourselves, and all your criminal behaviour and stalking. If you didn't have zits, I'd consider kissing you, well actually I wouldn't and in fact I don't know anyone that would - try campmother.
Hello Pro, Hello Cybernana, how lovely that you are back.
You think you are so clever dont you. Oh dear. What one will do when they are bored.
So what I would like to know, why does the David Bain case interest you so much? What have you to gain? Why do you go to so much trouble to check out message boards, copy and paste and feed back the knowledge in hopes of getting people banned or sued. I mean, why? Why does it concern you? Why is it your business?
Do you know David Bain? I recall asking that question and the reply was no. Do you know Joe Karam? From what I can gather the inference was no.
So why then?
Quotesweet_ad (133 ) 4:52 pm, Sat 9 Oct #28155
I can only answer for my self, unlike you I don't deign myself important enough to speak for others, particularly (and unlike you) those I don't know.
The David Bain case interests me so much because he was framed, the public were sold an unrealistic, improbable story and some swallowed, gropers like you and Christine Williams.
The trouble I (we) go to is to expose you people for the rotten persecutors you are. Not only have you attacked people you don't know but also their families. You lie and scheme in a manner below even the most cold hearted, you suck big time. You think you have a right to stalk people, even a Jury and witnesses, your persecution knows no limits, anybody who realises what you embody as people become your enemy. You are hateful and sick. But most of all you are cowardly, weak and cowardly picking on those you imagine can't fight back, those you imagine lesser than you. You are true, gutless cowards.
But today there is something to celebrate, that you idiots exposed yourselves, and all your criminal behaviour and stalking. If you didn't have zits, I'd consider kissing you, well actually I wouldn't and in fact I don't know anyone that would - try campmother.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Kenty baby, the carpet layer - still spitting tacks.
Blog posts at counterspin are by nature opinion pieces. Please adhere to our Terms and Conditions when posting.
On top of creating the most discredited book in NZ History, David and Goliath (what other book has resulted in a 100 page Police Complaints Report outlining all its shortcomings?), Joe Karam can now take the trophy for most discredited retrial verdict. Since the retrial we have had Bryan Bruce's documentary The Case Against Robin Bain and the Laws-Karam debate, not to mention the Justice for Robin Bain group and the counterspin site.
Dear oh dear Kent are you so one eyed that you can't recognise that the PCA report is obsolete, and that Joe's book has resulted in part in seeing one of NZ's greatest travesties of Justice corrected?
While I am not one to question the merit of the retrial verdict, Joe Karam would be the first one to admit that sometimes juries get it wrong, and in this case there are a number of high profile people prepared to voice opinions that would seem to support this scenario. So far the score in the Bain case is 1-1; one guilty verdict and one not guilty verdict. While in law only one counts, it would seem that the best of three might be a fairer contest. Next time round maybe the pro-Robin Bain supporters might be inclined to break sub judice rules and publish their side of the case to even up the media contest so that it isn't all one sided as it was in the years running up to the retrial.
Sorry Kent the score as you put it is 1 to 0 because a Miscarriage of Justice doesn't count as a trial. Please don't pretend that you are not one to question the merit of a retrial verdict because that is all you've done for over a year. Get a life and get over yourself. You were wrong, simply you are a loser despite all your sub-judice efforts and deciet.
Just as Karam was allowed to question the initial trial verdict, so are people allowed to question the retrial verdict and they have and they will continue to do so. Just as the first verdict did not stop Karam from promoting his belief that the verdict was wrong, then the second verdict is not going to miraculously stop people from promoting their belief that the retrial verdict was wrong. Karam cannot expect people to shut up simply because of a verdict in a court of law. He didn't do that and nor will other people. Similarly Karam cannot expect an automatic handout from us, the taxpayer, because he believes that the not guilty verdict is tantamount to proving innocence. He knows that not to be true as does everyone else with any knowledge of the legal system.
Yes Kent you are right. People are entitled to question any verdict. But what they are not entitled to do is (as you have promoted) to stalk Jurors, witnesses, people who don't agree with you, fabricate lies and propaganda, attack incessantly the Justice System, threaten people, distribute the Trial MS and also Act In Contempt of Court in a number of other ways. You're a hate-siter Kent, you may have fooled some people in the beginning but you are simply a hate-siter, and, unfortunately for you, one that faces hundreds of charges of Defamation in the Auckland High Court and somebody who is under investigation on more serious matters. Face reality Kent.
As I write this post, the compensation process is stewing slowly along. Karam should understand that the outcome is pretty much predetermined but he continues with what most consider to be a futile pursuit. He does so probably because he has previously succeeded where others have said he wouldn't. The only reason he has succeeded is because of public opinion. Public opinion is a fickle beast. Karam would be much better positioned if he had truth rather than public opinion on his side. He himself has said many times that ultimately truth has its day, the only mistake he makes there is his judgment of when that day arrives. It will be interesting to see his reaction should the day ever arrive in which truth and public opinion coincide.
Kent, you have no idea of what is happening with the compensation process, the only think stewing along slowly is your torpid half-sized brain. You have no idea of what Karam should know because he is so much smarter than you and doesn't promote hate or injustice. You're a sick puppy Kent, a pedo supporter.
But you are right about public opinion being a 'fickle beast.' You had your opportunity to promote your position with logic and reason, because you chose not to public opinion has turned against you forever.
Speaking of watching reactions, I'm looking forward to watching yours when you stand in the dock at the Auckland High Court, noted for all time as a defamer, bigot, liar and persecutor. That'll be fun Kenty, that will really be fun.
»
Kent Parker's blog
Login or register to post comments
On top of creating the most discredited book in NZ History, David and Goliath (what other book has resulted in a 100 page Police Complaints Report outlining all its shortcomings?), Joe Karam can now take the trophy for most discredited retrial verdict. Since the retrial we have had Bryan Bruce's documentary The Case Against Robin Bain and the Laws-Karam debate, not to mention the Justice for Robin Bain group and the counterspin site.
Dear oh dear Kent are you so one eyed that you can't recognise that the PCA report is obsolete, and that Joe's book has resulted in part in seeing one of NZ's greatest travesties of Justice corrected?
While I am not one to question the merit of the retrial verdict, Joe Karam would be the first one to admit that sometimes juries get it wrong, and in this case there are a number of high profile people prepared to voice opinions that would seem to support this scenario. So far the score in the Bain case is 1-1; one guilty verdict and one not guilty verdict. While in law only one counts, it would seem that the best of three might be a fairer contest. Next time round maybe the pro-Robin Bain supporters might be inclined to break sub judice rules and publish their side of the case to even up the media contest so that it isn't all one sided as it was in the years running up to the retrial.
Sorry Kent the score as you put it is 1 to 0 because a Miscarriage of Justice doesn't count as a trial. Please don't pretend that you are not one to question the merit of a retrial verdict because that is all you've done for over a year. Get a life and get over yourself. You were wrong, simply you are a loser despite all your sub-judice efforts and deciet.
Just as Karam was allowed to question the initial trial verdict, so are people allowed to question the retrial verdict and they have and they will continue to do so. Just as the first verdict did not stop Karam from promoting his belief that the verdict was wrong, then the second verdict is not going to miraculously stop people from promoting their belief that the retrial verdict was wrong. Karam cannot expect people to shut up simply because of a verdict in a court of law. He didn't do that and nor will other people. Similarly Karam cannot expect an automatic handout from us, the taxpayer, because he believes that the not guilty verdict is tantamount to proving innocence. He knows that not to be true as does everyone else with any knowledge of the legal system.
Yes Kent you are right. People are entitled to question any verdict. But what they are not entitled to do is (as you have promoted) to stalk Jurors, witnesses, people who don't agree with you, fabricate lies and propaganda, attack incessantly the Justice System, threaten people, distribute the Trial MS and also Act In Contempt of Court in a number of other ways. You're a hate-siter Kent, you may have fooled some people in the beginning but you are simply a hate-siter, and, unfortunately for you, one that faces hundreds of charges of Defamation in the Auckland High Court and somebody who is under investigation on more serious matters. Face reality Kent.
As I write this post, the compensation process is stewing slowly along. Karam should understand that the outcome is pretty much predetermined but he continues with what most consider to be a futile pursuit. He does so probably because he has previously succeeded where others have said he wouldn't. The only reason he has succeeded is because of public opinion. Public opinion is a fickle beast. Karam would be much better positioned if he had truth rather than public opinion on his side. He himself has said many times that ultimately truth has its day, the only mistake he makes there is his judgment of when that day arrives. It will be interesting to see his reaction should the day ever arrive in which truth and public opinion coincide.
Kent, you have no idea of what is happening with the compensation process, the only think stewing along slowly is your torpid half-sized brain. You have no idea of what Karam should know because he is so much smarter than you and doesn't promote hate or injustice. You're a sick puppy Kent, a pedo supporter.
But you are right about public opinion being a 'fickle beast.' You had your opportunity to promote your position with logic and reason, because you chose not to public opinion has turned against you forever.
Speaking of watching reactions, I'm looking forward to watching yours when you stand in the dock at the Auckland High Court, noted for all time as a defamer, bigot, liar and persecutor. That'll be fun Kenty, that will really be fun.
»
Kent Parker's blog
Login or register to post comments
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Poirot's question of who are they.
As providence should intervene, it was fortunate that I did not answer Poirot's question this morning, having reflected upon it today and following some wise counsel from some friends I will not reveal the details which I have received, and which I believe answers Poirots question of: who are they? (the hate-siters.)
So taking some generally held information, from particular people mostly from Trade Me, but also many months ago from Counterspin when I provided some of the details of Jury stalking that was on their boards earlier. Of course it was Vic Purkiss providing a 'trust me' it's true about the alleged Juror's letter to The Press. I use the word 'alleged' deliberately because the letter hasn't been authenticated to any official degree and of course one must hold reservations about anything claimed by The Press in terms of the Bain trial because of the van beynan, 'opinion' piece and his harassment of at least one juror. But on the face of it I believe Purkiss was being truthful with his 'trust me,' it appears he clearly knows a Juror. A relationship which Counterspin would be keen to cultivate if it assisted their lost cause in anyway. Apart from that Counterspin, hate-siters and a few associates have treated the Christchurch Jury in a way which I believe is provable Contempt of Court. Those words, 'Contempt of Court' apply equally to the current distribution of the MS. As I believe these matters are, or will be, investigated I will leave them alone in any detail apart from taking from this part of the answer to Poirot's question.
'These people' as we see are lawbreakers, self justified by their interpretation of defeating evil in the World, willing to ignore Court orders, to stalk Jurors, in fact probably willing to do anything. But I also think they may be quite a diverse bunch in terms of having some 'members' who truely believe that there has been a Miscarriage of Justice of some sort and while generally being unwilling to be law breakers 'go along with' others who may have different agendas, self protection or revenge for example. I think we must face it that some Police or ex Police have taken the whole Bain case personally. We've had reports on TM from the indiscreet supersleuth of conversations with Milton Weir and discussion about Milton Weir's impending book, and other information that supersleuth is so willing to swallow.
Then we must go deeper again, some of 'these people' are highly offended by evidence that Robin Bain was a paedophile, offended to the point that they are unable to realise that evidence is simply material, exhibits, testimony that tells a story and that the telling of that story is not to be reacted against emotionally it is to be assessed nothing more. Those that hold this hand of cards will most likely also be diverse among themselves, some are clearly paedophile supporters or apologists (we have had Stockdale and Newton recorded here from TM) explaining the most bizarre sexual activity in a nonchalant way. Some are probably even paedophiles.
Before continuing I should also say that many probably genuine people are among the ranks because it is clear that with the amount of evidence of stalking and threatening that has taken place some of those genuine people have dropped off, I'd suggest having had the good sense to see the beast that the hate-sites have become. People who might have had reservations about some evidence, or some gossip or something that didn't make sense - but who of course would immediately become ripe pickings for the misinformists, liars and propagandists that also populate the ranks of the hate-sites.
I think also there is a distortion of religion used by some of the hate-siters to justify their persecution and hate, real zealots and fanatics as has been shown by some of the more bizarre posts of Christine Williams all hellfire and brimstone, righteous soldiers on the way to slay the disbelievers and their families. Simply put very, very nutty.
I think we have also seen the egoists in competition, Stockdale and Kent Parker, moment of fame, full of bs and bravado and no thought for the fact (as has been displayed graphically in the last week) that they never had any comprehension of the evidence before 'deciding' David's guilt. Too thick in many ways to understand very basic evidence, too thick to be dispassionate and not look for things to suit their ends rather that to coolly look at what they know, become more informed, and perhaps make a decision that could be qualified with argument not mantra or lies.
So there are a number of types I suggest, some quite sick, other misguided, some looking for revenge and it goes on. But that is not to disregard that some may be a mixture of types, and to recognise that the hate-sites change individuals, subject them to new 'freedom's of thought, new frontiers of reality and what is right. That is the nature of hate-sites and that is what they breed from - no distinction, the simple belief (in this case that David is guilty) and you're in however unacceptable you may feel in other forums or walks of life. Some might view this as an exaggeration, but we've seen in places (even on reports to this blog) visitors to the site and how they were treated should they not 'conform.' I have had the experiences myself.
My view is that they are coming undone, dramatically and by their own hand. I hope that those that have been 'picked up and carried' along by the 'euphoria' of peddling hate and suddenly realised so, will pull out, abandon ship, and those that realise things are over their heads take the precaution of contacting me here or someone else able to help them.
So I haven't answered Poirot's question as fully as I could have, but I hope I have answered it with some reason.
So taking some generally held information, from particular people mostly from Trade Me, but also many months ago from Counterspin when I provided some of the details of Jury stalking that was on their boards earlier. Of course it was Vic Purkiss providing a 'trust me' it's true about the alleged Juror's letter to The Press. I use the word 'alleged' deliberately because the letter hasn't been authenticated to any official degree and of course one must hold reservations about anything claimed by The Press in terms of the Bain trial because of the van beynan, 'opinion' piece and his harassment of at least one juror. But on the face of it I believe Purkiss was being truthful with his 'trust me,' it appears he clearly knows a Juror. A relationship which Counterspin would be keen to cultivate if it assisted their lost cause in anyway. Apart from that Counterspin, hate-siters and a few associates have treated the Christchurch Jury in a way which I believe is provable Contempt of Court. Those words, 'Contempt of Court' apply equally to the current distribution of the MS. As I believe these matters are, or will be, investigated I will leave them alone in any detail apart from taking from this part of the answer to Poirot's question.
'These people' as we see are lawbreakers, self justified by their interpretation of defeating evil in the World, willing to ignore Court orders, to stalk Jurors, in fact probably willing to do anything. But I also think they may be quite a diverse bunch in terms of having some 'members' who truely believe that there has been a Miscarriage of Justice of some sort and while generally being unwilling to be law breakers 'go along with' others who may have different agendas, self protection or revenge for example. I think we must face it that some Police or ex Police have taken the whole Bain case personally. We've had reports on TM from the indiscreet supersleuth of conversations with Milton Weir and discussion about Milton Weir's impending book, and other information that supersleuth is so willing to swallow.
Then we must go deeper again, some of 'these people' are highly offended by evidence that Robin Bain was a paedophile, offended to the point that they are unable to realise that evidence is simply material, exhibits, testimony that tells a story and that the telling of that story is not to be reacted against emotionally it is to be assessed nothing more. Those that hold this hand of cards will most likely also be diverse among themselves, some are clearly paedophile supporters or apologists (we have had Stockdale and Newton recorded here from TM) explaining the most bizarre sexual activity in a nonchalant way. Some are probably even paedophiles.
Before continuing I should also say that many probably genuine people are among the ranks because it is clear that with the amount of evidence of stalking and threatening that has taken place some of those genuine people have dropped off, I'd suggest having had the good sense to see the beast that the hate-sites have become. People who might have had reservations about some evidence, or some gossip or something that didn't make sense - but who of course would immediately become ripe pickings for the misinformists, liars and propagandists that also populate the ranks of the hate-sites.
I think also there is a distortion of religion used by some of the hate-siters to justify their persecution and hate, real zealots and fanatics as has been shown by some of the more bizarre posts of Christine Williams all hellfire and brimstone, righteous soldiers on the way to slay the disbelievers and their families. Simply put very, very nutty.
I think we have also seen the egoists in competition, Stockdale and Kent Parker, moment of fame, full of bs and bravado and no thought for the fact (as has been displayed graphically in the last week) that they never had any comprehension of the evidence before 'deciding' David's guilt. Too thick in many ways to understand very basic evidence, too thick to be dispassionate and not look for things to suit their ends rather that to coolly look at what they know, become more informed, and perhaps make a decision that could be qualified with argument not mantra or lies.
So there are a number of types I suggest, some quite sick, other misguided, some looking for revenge and it goes on. But that is not to disregard that some may be a mixture of types, and to recognise that the hate-sites change individuals, subject them to new 'freedom's of thought, new frontiers of reality and what is right. That is the nature of hate-sites and that is what they breed from - no distinction, the simple belief (in this case that David is guilty) and you're in however unacceptable you may feel in other forums or walks of life. Some might view this as an exaggeration, but we've seen in places (even on reports to this blog) visitors to the site and how they were treated should they not 'conform.' I have had the experiences myself.
My view is that they are coming undone, dramatically and by their own hand. I hope that those that have been 'picked up and carried' along by the 'euphoria' of peddling hate and suddenly realised so, will pull out, abandon ship, and those that realise things are over their heads take the precaution of contacting me here or someone else able to help them.
So I haven't answered Poirot's question as fully as I could have, but I hope I have answered it with some reason.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Mike Stockdale - what's wrong with the 'man?'
He posted this four hours ago on Trade Me and has no effort to remove it, in fact has argued in it's favour supported by other hate-siters, sweet_ad, misspw, jeeves50, kookybelle and goldnkiwi. Not one of them able to connect the offence with which his post can be so readily taken, or by the trivialising as normal something that is far, far from normal. These people have had accusations left at their door that they are paedophile supporters over many many years - does Stockdale confirm it with this blase, bizarre, sick post?
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
to highlight:
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.
Ultimately, in a frequently used procedure a 'love Robin' hate-siter, accuses another poster of being a victim of a sex crime and 'therefore' biased against the sex crimes of Robin Bain himself.
Or perhaps i should extend my sympathy, you seem so definite and so lost, as if you were not believed yourself, I do not expect you to confirm as that would be unkind, and denial, well that is just extra fodder.
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 12:36 pm, Sat 4 Sep #24935
This second poster, some will recall was beckoned to the hate-site guiltyfreeforums by none other that the stalker and Robin apologists Kalnovitch. And later claimed to have only recently formed an opinion on the perpetrator of the Bain murders, despite have already signed the doomed petition of the damned.
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
to highlight:
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.
Ultimately, in a frequently used procedure a 'love Robin' hate-siter, accuses another poster of being a victim of a sex crime and 'therefore' biased against the sex crimes of Robin Bain himself.
Or perhaps i should extend my sympathy, you seem so definite and so lost, as if you were not believed yourself, I do not expect you to confirm as that would be unkind, and denial, well that is just extra fodder.
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 12:36 pm, Sat 4 Sep #24935
This second poster, some will recall was beckoned to the hate-site guiltyfreeforums by none other that the stalker and Robin apologists Kalnovitch. And later claimed to have only recently formed an opinion on the perpetrator of the Bain murders, despite have already signed the doomed petition of the damned.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Lindsay Kennard the stalker:
Lindsay R. Kennard Size 20 it shows in her photo on the site where she outed herself and her children a few years ago. Once its online it goes feral.
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Here the woeful insomniac kennard trys to reinvent the past. I'll explain it for him although I accept he might be drug addled or drunk at this time or anytime of the day.
If a person joins Trade Me or any other organisation that runs a message board and chooses to post under a pseudonym a contract is formed between the publisher and poster about the poster's identity. Above, where Kennard refers to person having a profile beyond Trade Me, the contract is in no way effected for the simple reason that the pseudonym cannot be connected to the profile. That's very obvious I'm sure to most people, but kennard tries to suggest there is some link that one makes the other obvious or known. The real situation, and what kennard is trying to hide, is that an anonymous poster was identified by Annette Curran and others from the hate-sites, then subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment as well as having the 'until then' anonymous persons photo distributed. Kennard was and is part of this stalking. As was kalnovitch who named the posters children and dcameron and others who denied Kalnovitch's actions and demanded proof supporting it, of course to republish Kalnovitch's naming of the children on TM again would have repeated the stalking and victimisation. But that's how stalkers work folks, that's how they work as the hate-sites administrators watch in support.
linzobimbo expects now to reinvent the situation but of course it is too late, and of course most people, I'm sure, are readily able to see through his dishonesty and corruptness. His crys of 'wolf' and plaintive overtures for sympathy fall on deaf ears.
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Here the woeful insomniac kennard trys to reinvent the past. I'll explain it for him although I accept he might be drug addled or drunk at this time or anytime of the day.
If a person joins Trade Me or any other organisation that runs a message board and chooses to post under a pseudonym a contract is formed between the publisher and poster about the poster's identity. Above, where Kennard refers to person having a profile beyond Trade Me, the contract is in no way effected for the simple reason that the pseudonym cannot be connected to the profile. That's very obvious I'm sure to most people, but kennard tries to suggest there is some link that one makes the other obvious or known. The real situation, and what kennard is trying to hide, is that an anonymous poster was identified by Annette Curran and others from the hate-sites, then subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment as well as having the 'until then' anonymous persons photo distributed. Kennard was and is part of this stalking. As was kalnovitch who named the posters children and dcameron and others who denied Kalnovitch's actions and demanded proof supporting it, of course to republish Kalnovitch's naming of the children on TM again would have repeated the stalking and victimisation. But that's how stalkers work folks, that's how they work as the hate-sites administrators watch in support.
linzobimbo expects now to reinvent the situation but of course it is too late, and of course most people, I'm sure, are readily able to see through his dishonesty and corruptness. His crys of 'wolf' and plaintive overtures for sympathy fall on deaf ears.
Kent Parker - displays of intolerance
Anonymous said...
Thanks for your frankness I appreciate it. During the course of my conversation with Parker and Stockdale, Parker criticised me for not stating my position as eloquently as he does. This comment highlighted for me Parker's extreme intolerance of others. This extreme intolerance coupled with his hatred of Joe Karam and the mesmerizing affect the his own intelligence obviously has on himself has clouded his judgement.
An idiot is still an idiot no matter how you care phrase it and Parker and his trusty off-sider Stockdale are idiots.
Stockdale and Parker are obsessed. This obsession of theirs has been generated by their hatred of Joe Karam nothing more nothing less.
I would like to send them a great big K(eep) I(t) S(imple) S(tupid) to comfort them through these troubled times and a little bit of advice.
Get over yourselves you are not that important.
August 26, 2010 8:13 AM
Thanks for this. I had similar experiences. From when I began posting it was obvious that all were watching to determine my motives, and more importantly whether I was of the same views of the hate-siters. A most unusual experience, like walking in darkness and being bumped or nudged suddenly, from no where. The intolerance and suspicion of outsiders was palpable, reminded me more of a cloistered gang environment or mentality. I think we can all have different views and that is to be welcomed in a progressive society, it's a freedom as is speech and being able to express views in a non-defamatory way.
Nonetheless it makes an interesting study, in particular the descent of some, who've obviously led blemish free lives, to becoming stalkers and propagandists. The surrender those people, at least some of them, have made into a world dominated by attacking those that are not 'right,' those that don't understand and who are somehow 'lesser' and 'inferior' is significant, as is their unwillingness or inability to take stock and see how the Bain case, and their own misapprehensions, have overtaken them. In one breath I can feel sympathy for them but in another only contempt for the harm they cause. In the end, even if they were right for all the right reasons (something I obviously wouldn't agree,) what they have done and continued to do, is not justified for they want to break down the law and reform it for their own 'righteous' purpose - something which must be defended against.
Thanks for your frankness I appreciate it. During the course of my conversation with Parker and Stockdale, Parker criticised me for not stating my position as eloquently as he does. This comment highlighted for me Parker's extreme intolerance of others. This extreme intolerance coupled with his hatred of Joe Karam and the mesmerizing affect the his own intelligence obviously has on himself has clouded his judgement.
An idiot is still an idiot no matter how you care phrase it and Parker and his trusty off-sider Stockdale are idiots.
Stockdale and Parker are obsessed. This obsession of theirs has been generated by their hatred of Joe Karam nothing more nothing less.
I would like to send them a great big K(eep) I(t) S(imple) S(tupid) to comfort them through these troubled times and a little bit of advice.
Get over yourselves you are not that important.
August 26, 2010 8:13 AM
Thanks for this. I had similar experiences. From when I began posting it was obvious that all were watching to determine my motives, and more importantly whether I was of the same views of the hate-siters. A most unusual experience, like walking in darkness and being bumped or nudged suddenly, from no where. The intolerance and suspicion of outsiders was palpable, reminded me more of a cloistered gang environment or mentality. I think we can all have different views and that is to be welcomed in a progressive society, it's a freedom as is speech and being able to express views in a non-defamatory way.
Nonetheless it makes an interesting study, in particular the descent of some, who've obviously led blemish free lives, to becoming stalkers and propagandists. The surrender those people, at least some of them, have made into a world dominated by attacking those that are not 'right,' those that don't understand and who are somehow 'lesser' and 'inferior' is significant, as is their unwillingness or inability to take stock and see how the Bain case, and their own misapprehensions, have overtaken them. In one breath I can feel sympathy for them but in another only contempt for the harm they cause. In the end, even if they were right for all the right reasons (something I obviously wouldn't agree,) what they have done and continued to do, is not justified for they want to break down the law and reform it for their own 'righteous' purpose - something which must be defended against.
Friday, August 20, 2010
linz4me - delusional and misleading, again.
The following from the embittered linz4me on Trade Me:
I have never seen the names of the children in here but the children are named and photographs on display on a site created by the poster herself it gives their names, ages, interests and educational aspirations so therefore is in the public domain. There is a photo of the poster her marital status and her opinion of her partner also place in the public domain. As any media lawyer will tell you once you yourself place the information in the public domain it can back and bite you on the bum and the fault lays squarely with the person releasing the information. it is now public property just as the information I have released about myself, the difference being I am quietly pleased with the progress I have made back into the world of reality and I make the information available as it is possible it may help just one person. I can tell you there is far more more very personal information about me in the public domain than you can imagine and done with my knowledge and blessing to help others. I am not ashamed of who I am but I deeply regret some of the things I have done and have spent years going back and where possible making peace with people I have affected.
Quotelinz4me (274 ) 11:10 am, Fri 20 Aug #22147
Here we have myth building, an attempt at covering a stalker's tracks in order to re-victimise a victim. A clear case of blame the victim from a pill-popping reprobate (that's got a tune to it.)
I think we all understand that an anonymous poster on TM is guaranteed under the T&C to have their anonymity guaranteed. Posters are specifically told not to reveal the real identities of other posters, obviously subtle revelations to disguise the 'outing' also are restricted. The anonymous poster whose life outside TM was revealed in first by golfergold (Annette Curran) and her children by kalnovitch (Glenda OBrien,) who in otherwords had her contract of anonymity breached by TM and the above mention posters, was victimised by those actions to which she gave no sanction because her real name and her nondeplume should never have been connected on the boards by stalkers. This idiot linz4me proposes that once outed illegally, then the blame for that falls on the victim for having actually being a real person.
The particular outing goes further, because the hate-siters (on and off the TM boards) conducted a campaign against the person, encouraging each other to ring her work, talk to her 'boss' about an allegation that she was posting during work hours and so forth. She was also phoned at home during this time and quite justifiably was made afraid by these gutless people. One of the prime-movers in this attack was the hate-site sponsor and member Mike Stockdale. I've written about him before (TM name supersleuth,) he is the man that approached a Crown witness, presumably not identifying himself as a hate-site member, to discuss the witnesses evidence. He did this, despite as we all know, that the case is not concluded. Furthermore, this hateful man has stalked the jury - the details of which I have already posted.
So my message to you linz4me, is that nobody is fooled by you trying to blame the victim of public exposure to their own actions. Similarly, with the others you mention above the stalker kalnovitch and misspw, they're not victims, they're organised victimisers from the rotten hate-sites you inhabit in your sad lonely life.
But a question for you linz4me, how are you getting on for suing for having had your anonymous feelings hurt? You're an absolute dreamer. Sue me if you've got the guts or think that anything that I've published about you and your rotten, stalking mates is something I can't prove.
I have never seen the names of the children in here but the children are named and photographs on display on a site created by the poster herself it gives their names, ages, interests and educational aspirations so therefore is in the public domain. There is a photo of the poster her marital status and her opinion of her partner also place in the public domain. As any media lawyer will tell you once you yourself place the information in the public domain it can back and bite you on the bum and the fault lays squarely with the person releasing the information. it is now public property just as the information I have released about myself, the difference being I am quietly pleased with the progress I have made back into the world of reality and I make the information available as it is possible it may help just one person. I can tell you there is far more more very personal information about me in the public domain than you can imagine and done with my knowledge and blessing to help others. I am not ashamed of who I am but I deeply regret some of the things I have done and have spent years going back and where possible making peace with people I have affected.
Quotelinz4me (274 ) 11:10 am, Fri 20 Aug #22147
Here we have myth building, an attempt at covering a stalker's tracks in order to re-victimise a victim. A clear case of blame the victim from a pill-popping reprobate (that's got a tune to it.)
I think we all understand that an anonymous poster on TM is guaranteed under the T&C to have their anonymity guaranteed. Posters are specifically told not to reveal the real identities of other posters, obviously subtle revelations to disguise the 'outing' also are restricted. The anonymous poster whose life outside TM was revealed in first by golfergold (Annette Curran) and her children by kalnovitch (Glenda OBrien,) who in otherwords had her contract of anonymity breached by TM and the above mention posters, was victimised by those actions to which she gave no sanction because her real name and her nondeplume should never have been connected on the boards by stalkers. This idiot linz4me proposes that once outed illegally, then the blame for that falls on the victim for having actually being a real person.
The particular outing goes further, because the hate-siters (on and off the TM boards) conducted a campaign against the person, encouraging each other to ring her work, talk to her 'boss' about an allegation that she was posting during work hours and so forth. She was also phoned at home during this time and quite justifiably was made afraid by these gutless people. One of the prime-movers in this attack was the hate-site sponsor and member Mike Stockdale. I've written about him before (TM name supersleuth,) he is the man that approached a Crown witness, presumably not identifying himself as a hate-site member, to discuss the witnesses evidence. He did this, despite as we all know, that the case is not concluded. Furthermore, this hateful man has stalked the jury - the details of which I have already posted.
So my message to you linz4me, is that nobody is fooled by you trying to blame the victim of public exposure to their own actions. Similarly, with the others you mention above the stalker kalnovitch and misspw, they're not victims, they're organised victimisers from the rotten hate-sites you inhabit in your sad lonely life.
But a question for you linz4me, how are you getting on for suing for having had your anonymous feelings hurt? You're an absolute dreamer. Sue me if you've got the guts or think that anything that I've published about you and your rotten, stalking mates is something I can't prove.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Kalnovitch and Annette Curran's hate-site
Congratulations to therafter, thereafter becoming the newest hate-site member. Special thanks to Kalnovitch for passing on the information as I like to keep up to date with the hate-sites and their members.
Posting here T&C of the the particular hate-site of the stalker Curran -
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “guilty.freeforums.org” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that “guilty.freeforums.org” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered to being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent, neither “guilty.freeforums.org” nor phpBB shall be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.
I'm just wondering how old Annie believes that she can prevent legal entry into her site under Court Order to uplift hateful material intended to vilify others, promote stalking of others, defame others and so forth. Perhaps she is confused by thinking that she is immune to NZ law. That wouldn't be unlikely as she has shown confusion over the most simple matters for a long time. I guess if the Cyber Crime Unit came calling Annie would get her gun and say hold up there fellas, this is a private hate-site and when the cyber police said don't be silly Annie, she'd burst out crying and hand everything over and go for a plea bargain.
I wonder if old Annie (rhymes with something that begins with f - but I won't say it) has worked out that material is leaking from her site, and that much of the material is defamatory and identifiable under the Harassment Act 1997. I don't think so because she's, well - she's thick. Other material coming into free cyber space from that site is identifiable as criminal stalking under S 6 (2)d. of The Harassment Act 1997. I wonder if old Annie understands that as the originating publisher of defamatory material she is responsible. I wonder if old Annie has even got a brain.
I may yet post some material from the free forums hate-site. Should I decide to of course I'll not post anything which is defamatory of others, or which can't be shown as true - of course that narrows down the options because hate sites, by their nature, proliferate such material to hurt, harass, molest and defame others. Anyone who has something they would like to bring to my attention about Annie and Kalnovitch's site please forward it on, along with your position of whether it should be published here - note of course any published material will be scrutinised to ensure it's content is true, not defamatory, and not designed to engender hate. Thanks.
Posting here T&C of the the particular hate-site of the stalker Curran -
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “guilty.freeforums.org” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that “guilty.freeforums.org” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered to being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent, neither “guilty.freeforums.org” nor phpBB shall be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.
I'm just wondering how old Annie believes that she can prevent legal entry into her site under Court Order to uplift hateful material intended to vilify others, promote stalking of others, defame others and so forth. Perhaps she is confused by thinking that she is immune to NZ law. That wouldn't be unlikely as she has shown confusion over the most simple matters for a long time. I guess if the Cyber Crime Unit came calling Annie would get her gun and say hold up there fellas, this is a private hate-site and when the cyber police said don't be silly Annie, she'd burst out crying and hand everything over and go for a plea bargain.
I wonder if old Annie (rhymes with something that begins with f - but I won't say it) has worked out that material is leaking from her site, and that much of the material is defamatory and identifiable under the Harassment Act 1997. I don't think so because she's, well - she's thick. Other material coming into free cyber space from that site is identifiable as criminal stalking under S 6 (2)d. of The Harassment Act 1997. I wonder if old Annie understands that as the originating publisher of defamatory material she is responsible. I wonder if old Annie has even got a brain.
I may yet post some material from the free forums hate-site. Should I decide to of course I'll not post anything which is defamatory of others, or which can't be shown as true - of course that narrows down the options because hate sites, by their nature, proliferate such material to hurt, harass, molest and defame others. Anyone who has something they would like to bring to my attention about Annie and Kalnovitch's site please forward it on, along with your position of whether it should be published here - note of course any published material will be scrutinised to ensure it's content is true, not defamatory, and not designed to engender hate. Thanks.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Selling the lies: hate-sites.
Of course a hate-site has no interest in the truth or anything that might devalue its credibility. A visit to any of the hate-sites set up to focus persecution of David Bain have the foregoing bias in abundance. Over a period of time I may bring forward many of the myths they perpetuate, while at the same time revealing from evidence what the facts are, whether being one sided or having two possible interpretations either favouring or not favouring the dismantled case against David Bain.
I have three specific instances to relate here, but first I want to deal with the perpetuated myth that David used the paper round as an alibi. At the outset such a proposition is of keen interest because we have all heard of alibis and know that an alibi is someone saying I couldn't have committed that crime because I was elsewhere at the time. A failed alibi might well be a sure sign of guilt. The Crown crowed loudly about the paper-run alibi, but as most often happens with fabrications, added to the effect. These 'additions,' also the evidence of Mrs Laney, and the turn on time of the computer showed that the paper run was never an alibi, however, Mrs Laney's evidence and the calculated computer bootup time were. The Crown went out of the way to 'show' that David 'drew' attention to himself on the paper round to prove he had delivered the papers. I'm sure some people swallowed that, others may have been more interested in the time given by Mrs Laney when she saw David and what the computer turn on time was agreed to be.
Mrs Laney's time of seeing David and the computer turn on time were never compatible with the David as killer scenario, particularly after the full evidence was given by Mrs Laney and not supressed by the Crown as it had been in the first trial. Even fudging those times didn't put David in the house when Robin killed himself, to be generous and suggest that they did allow David to be in the house when Robin suicided required a remarkable sequence of events to have needed to occur, not least Robin's co-operation in his own death rather than his suicide as the Jury decided. There was no time for David to have been waiting for his father in the lounge alcove or having being able to shoot Robin with an upward trajectory shot that allowed an uninterrupted screen of dna and blood to spread across the lounge floor and onto the alcove curtain and simultaneously move in two directions of Robin's bent left leg.
All of those events aside, a simple question is forged which supplies its own answer. Why did David have to be seen delivering his passages and therefore having an alibi? The answer is, he didn't have to be seen at all that morning, simply the papers in the letter boxes proved without doubt that David had delivered them. Who else could have delivered them, so the alibi myth, proposed by the Police, when looked at closely is deception.
The three specific instances (mentioned above) where lies are used by hate-siters to try and 'prove' David's guilt.
1/ dcameron, a hate-siter and treasurer for bludged funds to go into kitty to save camp mother's rotten butt. This person claimed on Trade Me that she had seen photos of the scratches on David Bain's chest on the morning of the murders. This lie made by dcameron despite the fact that the police Doctor and two officers who were present when David was examined saw no scratches at all. When challenged about the whereabouts of the photos, in true hate-siters style dcameron said she had seen them in a lawyer's office where she 'worked.' Under pressure because no photos of such injuries were ever taken or produced, she claimed that were in a 'private' collection. So you have it, the hate-site treasurer, honest and straight forward kiwi is indeed a lying persecutor, lying deliberately to perpetuate the goals of her hate-site.
2/Kulkkulbelle; hate-site supporter and possible member, certainly a networker and confidant of hate-site members. This person posted on TM of having seen a pathologist's report which proved that Laniet had never had a baby or been pregnant. Of course when asked, many times over several weeks, she was unable to provide it - leaving us all to understand why, another that perpetuates mistruths to persecute someone found innocent.
3/jmgb51, another hate-site activist eagerly accepting the role to lie and mislead for the cause. This person is pre-occupied with stalking another poster and over a recent period of 14 or so days mentioned the posters christian name 61 times on the board despite the TM rules preventing people being identified or outed. jmgb51 is obviously a coward emboldened by his/her anonymity. As things progress with hate-siters, like weak men fortified by whisky, this person claimed that a poll showed over 80% of New Zealanders thought David suddenly guilty, (a dramatic - by illegitimate licence, shift of over 40%,) and again for the sole purpose of peresecuting an innocent man to protect the 'reputation' of a dead paedophile.
I have three specific instances to relate here, but first I want to deal with the perpetuated myth that David used the paper round as an alibi. At the outset such a proposition is of keen interest because we have all heard of alibis and know that an alibi is someone saying I couldn't have committed that crime because I was elsewhere at the time. A failed alibi might well be a sure sign of guilt. The Crown crowed loudly about the paper-run alibi, but as most often happens with fabrications, added to the effect. These 'additions,' also the evidence of Mrs Laney, and the turn on time of the computer showed that the paper run was never an alibi, however, Mrs Laney's evidence and the calculated computer bootup time were. The Crown went out of the way to 'show' that David 'drew' attention to himself on the paper round to prove he had delivered the papers. I'm sure some people swallowed that, others may have been more interested in the time given by Mrs Laney when she saw David and what the computer turn on time was agreed to be.
Mrs Laney's time of seeing David and the computer turn on time were never compatible with the David as killer scenario, particularly after the full evidence was given by Mrs Laney and not supressed by the Crown as it had been in the first trial. Even fudging those times didn't put David in the house when Robin killed himself, to be generous and suggest that they did allow David to be in the house when Robin suicided required a remarkable sequence of events to have needed to occur, not least Robin's co-operation in his own death rather than his suicide as the Jury decided. There was no time for David to have been waiting for his father in the lounge alcove or having being able to shoot Robin with an upward trajectory shot that allowed an uninterrupted screen of dna and blood to spread across the lounge floor and onto the alcove curtain and simultaneously move in two directions of Robin's bent left leg.
All of those events aside, a simple question is forged which supplies its own answer. Why did David have to be seen delivering his passages and therefore having an alibi? The answer is, he didn't have to be seen at all that morning, simply the papers in the letter boxes proved without doubt that David had delivered them. Who else could have delivered them, so the alibi myth, proposed by the Police, when looked at closely is deception.
The three specific instances (mentioned above) where lies are used by hate-siters to try and 'prove' David's guilt.
1/ dcameron, a hate-siter and treasurer for bludged funds to go into kitty to save camp mother's rotten butt. This person claimed on Trade Me that she had seen photos of the scratches on David Bain's chest on the morning of the murders. This lie made by dcameron despite the fact that the police Doctor and two officers who were present when David was examined saw no scratches at all. When challenged about the whereabouts of the photos, in true hate-siters style dcameron said she had seen them in a lawyer's office where she 'worked.' Under pressure because no photos of such injuries were ever taken or produced, she claimed that were in a 'private' collection. So you have it, the hate-site treasurer, honest and straight forward kiwi is indeed a lying persecutor, lying deliberately to perpetuate the goals of her hate-site.
2/Kulkkulbelle; hate-site supporter and possible member, certainly a networker and confidant of hate-site members. This person posted on TM of having seen a pathologist's report which proved that Laniet had never had a baby or been pregnant. Of course when asked, many times over several weeks, she was unable to provide it - leaving us all to understand why, another that perpetuates mistruths to persecute someone found innocent.
3/jmgb51, another hate-site activist eagerly accepting the role to lie and mislead for the cause. This person is pre-occupied with stalking another poster and over a recent period of 14 or so days mentioned the posters christian name 61 times on the board despite the TM rules preventing people being identified or outed. jmgb51 is obviously a coward emboldened by his/her anonymity. As things progress with hate-siters, like weak men fortified by whisky, this person claimed that a poll showed over 80% of New Zealanders thought David suddenly guilty, (a dramatic - by illegitimate licence, shift of over 40%,) and again for the sole purpose of peresecuting an innocent man to protect the 'reputation' of a dead paedophile.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Stalking stalkers by Goodnewsguy.
Stalking stalkers isn't as much fun as you might think. It's pretty boring really and some of the noises that old supersleuth makes when breaking wind are quite objectionable but not as much when he's muttering to himself and measuring his urine samples early in the morning. I wish he'd just speak up, and who the hell is this 'little willie' that he keeps talking to has got me beat. What I'd like to know is whether is legal to have 'little willie' locked up in old sleuth's toilet having to watch him measure his urine samples. Some things should be private, surely.
Just because I'm a stalker stalking a stalker doesn't mean I haven't got feelings. I think that Nos should remember that, also that I'm smell-sensitive. I'll lay it on the line right now if supergoose starts measuring poo samples, I'm outa here. If I can, I'll take little willie with me, being locked in a toilet can't be much fun anyway, but witnessing supergoose taking poo samples would be too much for anybody, little willie or not.
I don't want people to think I'm just using this as an excuse to bring up employment issues because I'm not. The fact that Nos doesn't appreciate what I have to go through in order to provide him with undercover information is neither here nor there. I'm not bitter that Nos didn't have the foresight to appreciate that stalking supergoose might include urine and poo samples. All of which is irrelevant to my non issues of poor pay, never seeing my family and being required to be following around some old coot who has no idea where he's going. I hope that is clear to all, that I'm not moaning.
I hope it is also clear that just because the Justice Department have taken no interest in sleuth being a member and sponsor of a hate-site, and having embarked upon contacting witnessess and stalking details of jury members along with the combined efforts of his fellow hate-siters to do the same - that I don't see why I should have to do it. It's not in my employment contract - even though I don't have one, resulting from the fact Nos reckoned that if he gave me an employment contract I'd have to sign it using an X so that nobody would know my true identity if I was caught listening to supersleuth mumbling to little willie. Sometimes life isn't fair as my research shows. With all the people that signed kent's petition using an X, well, how did they get away with it, that's what I'd like to know.
Just because I'm a stalker stalking a stalker doesn't mean I haven't got feelings. I think that Nos should remember that, also that I'm smell-sensitive. I'll lay it on the line right now if supergoose starts measuring poo samples, I'm outa here. If I can, I'll take little willie with me, being locked in a toilet can't be much fun anyway, but witnessing supergoose taking poo samples would be too much for anybody, little willie or not.
I don't want people to think I'm just using this as an excuse to bring up employment issues because I'm not. The fact that Nos doesn't appreciate what I have to go through in order to provide him with undercover information is neither here nor there. I'm not bitter that Nos didn't have the foresight to appreciate that stalking supergoose might include urine and poo samples. All of which is irrelevant to my non issues of poor pay, never seeing my family and being required to be following around some old coot who has no idea where he's going. I hope that is clear to all, that I'm not moaning.
I hope it is also clear that just because the Justice Department have taken no interest in sleuth being a member and sponsor of a hate-site, and having embarked upon contacting witnessess and stalking details of jury members along with the combined efforts of his fellow hate-siters to do the same - that I don't see why I should have to do it. It's not in my employment contract - even though I don't have one, resulting from the fact Nos reckoned that if he gave me an employment contract I'd have to sign it using an X so that nobody would know my true identity if I was caught listening to supersleuth mumbling to little willie. Sometimes life isn't fair as my research shows. With all the people that signed kent's petition using an X, well, how did they get away with it, that's what I'd like to know.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Update from Goodnewsguy.
I tell you what being undercover isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sometimes I think old hairy nostrils thinks he's the boss of me, sending me off on missions like I've got nothing else to do but spy on hate-sites even on Sundays.
Hate-sites aren't what they made out to be either. They're boring, just thinking about them is good for insomnia. All these nutters playing secret agents, multi voting on Bain polls, rewriting evidence on a murder-suicide case that's 16 years old, playing amatuer cops, knitting and dribbling and the hair brushes full of blue hair - I'll never think of grandma in the same way again.
Then there's camp mother letting the cat of the bag, wailing and begging for money to save his sorry butt. Nothing changes except they get deeper in the mire, and what a mire it is - it's very smelly and none of them use toilet paper prefering instead their hands. You couldn't find a slice of bread on Counterspin that isn't brown and chewed round the edges. I can understand now why they observe smelly and dirty as being something akin to sainthood.
Mike and Vic are going to write the Minister on official hate-site letterhead, explaining that they can be trusted to confirm that the petition is all above board and they've located and checked out the addresses of all 17 people who have signed a hundred times each under different names. That ought to put the Minister's mind at rest that's everythings all kosher and not to worry that the hate-sites are full of stalkers like laddiefatcat and lindz4me. Mike's even going to tell the Minister that it will be 'no joke' if David gets compensation for being persecuted and falsely imprisoned. He's going to 'tell' the Minister that the Government don't have to pander to Mr 'Reed and co' they won't lose any votes if they turn the claim down and listen to a bunch of people that are getting sued in the High Court for being partly upstanding, with long arms, somewhat dirty, folks with blue hair.
Hate-sites aren't what they made out to be either. They're boring, just thinking about them is good for insomnia. All these nutters playing secret agents, multi voting on Bain polls, rewriting evidence on a murder-suicide case that's 16 years old, playing amatuer cops, knitting and dribbling and the hair brushes full of blue hair - I'll never think of grandma in the same way again.
Then there's camp mother letting the cat of the bag, wailing and begging for money to save his sorry butt. Nothing changes except they get deeper in the mire, and what a mire it is - it's very smelly and none of them use toilet paper prefering instead their hands. You couldn't find a slice of bread on Counterspin that isn't brown and chewed round the edges. I can understand now why they observe smelly and dirty as being something akin to sainthood.
Mike and Vic are going to write the Minister on official hate-site letterhead, explaining that they can be trusted to confirm that the petition is all above board and they've located and checked out the addresses of all 17 people who have signed a hundred times each under different names. That ought to put the Minister's mind at rest that's everythings all kosher and not to worry that the hate-sites are full of stalkers like laddiefatcat and lindz4me. Mike's even going to tell the Minister that it will be 'no joke' if David gets compensation for being persecuted and falsely imprisoned. He's going to 'tell' the Minister that the Government don't have to pander to Mr 'Reed and co' they won't lose any votes if they turn the claim down and listen to a bunch of people that are getting sued in the High Court for being partly upstanding, with long arms, somewhat dirty, folks with blue hair.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
More from Reader
Reader said...
You talk about ‘hate sites’ on here, and that term has been ridiculed by posters on TradeMe. This caught my interest, so I have been looking it up. It seems that ‘hate sites’ are those internet sites run for and by members of ‘hate groups’ for ‘hate speech’, and are linked with ‘hate crimes’ I’ve picked up some working definitions from wiki that make sense to me:
A HATE GROUP is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. I would add to individuals or groups on other criteria, too.
HATE SPEECH is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
HATE CRIME generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).
So I wish to congratulate you for your use of the term ‘Hate sites’. The sites to which you refer are clearly run by ‘hate groups’; utilize ‘hate speech’ and perpetuate ‘hate crimes’.
Time it was stopped.
August 5, 2010 1:57 PM
Yes. They are hate-sites and it's important that is understood. Counterspin, Justice (sic) For Robin Bain and David Bain 'Free' Forums all fit those catagories. They, probably quite uniquely, have multiple targets, to name a few: The Justice System, Specific Members of the Bar, a particular Jury, several witnesses in the Bain trial, obviously Joe Karam and David Bain, and anyone that speaks out against them or exposes their lies.
It's easy to imagine that when these sites began they were like the proverbial children in the lolly shop, no apparent oppostion of any strength, a voice in the media and so forth, an apparently willing venue in Trade Me, and an perceived gap in the law applying to them. All things which have ultimately led to their failure. From the outset they had no proper organisation and didn't identify a single cause using rational arguments. They went looking for targets, in fact those targets were those they had already identified as enemies so their purposes were split between revenge, getting even and the overall picture of claiming the moral high ground in their effort to persecute a man already exonerated by the legal system.
The sites readily betrayed themselves with anger by targetting people on other boards, public figures and the like. They were the marauders who mistook their cause as a crusade. They had no discipline, no control and there were no boundaries. Those failures began with the hosts Parker and Perkiss who quite early showed a propensity toward self-importance and being recognised as white knights of some discription. They didn't see anything wrong with the rampages conducted against citizens going about their lawful business, they offered no reproach, in fact Perkiss is recorded as saying 'lets go get them' in reference to people that were stalked and identified before being harassed. I imagine a juvenile street gang would have been able to exercise more control and prudent advice that what Parker and Perkiss were able to muster - with one eye on the papers and the other on a mirror.
They willing entertained 'veterans of hate and stalking' such as Curran and OBrien as old and experienced hands, welcoming them into the fold with their tools of trade. They exploited the tactics of TM posters nina_concertina, rodney osook and linz4me of accusing others of what they had done themselves while all the while holding a pretence of properness. But look where they have got themselves - around each corner now they don't know what to expect so they rachet up the hate and dissemination seeming unwilling or unable to recognise the reality that they are exposed already and named in The Auckland High Court.
So yes Reader, hate-sites, no doubt.
You talk about ‘hate sites’ on here, and that term has been ridiculed by posters on TradeMe. This caught my interest, so I have been looking it up. It seems that ‘hate sites’ are those internet sites run for and by members of ‘hate groups’ for ‘hate speech’, and are linked with ‘hate crimes’ I’ve picked up some working definitions from wiki that make sense to me:
A HATE GROUP is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. I would add to individuals or groups on other criteria, too.
HATE SPEECH is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
HATE CRIME generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).
So I wish to congratulate you for your use of the term ‘Hate sites’. The sites to which you refer are clearly run by ‘hate groups’; utilize ‘hate speech’ and perpetuate ‘hate crimes’.
Time it was stopped.
August 5, 2010 1:57 PM
Yes. They are hate-sites and it's important that is understood. Counterspin, Justice (sic) For Robin Bain and David Bain 'Free' Forums all fit those catagories. They, probably quite uniquely, have multiple targets, to name a few: The Justice System, Specific Members of the Bar, a particular Jury, several witnesses in the Bain trial, obviously Joe Karam and David Bain, and anyone that speaks out against them or exposes their lies.
It's easy to imagine that when these sites began they were like the proverbial children in the lolly shop, no apparent oppostion of any strength, a voice in the media and so forth, an apparently willing venue in Trade Me, and an perceived gap in the law applying to them. All things which have ultimately led to their failure. From the outset they had no proper organisation and didn't identify a single cause using rational arguments. They went looking for targets, in fact those targets were those they had already identified as enemies so their purposes were split between revenge, getting even and the overall picture of claiming the moral high ground in their effort to persecute a man already exonerated by the legal system.
The sites readily betrayed themselves with anger by targetting people on other boards, public figures and the like. They were the marauders who mistook their cause as a crusade. They had no discipline, no control and there were no boundaries. Those failures began with the hosts Parker and Perkiss who quite early showed a propensity toward self-importance and being recognised as white knights of some discription. They didn't see anything wrong with the rampages conducted against citizens going about their lawful business, they offered no reproach, in fact Perkiss is recorded as saying 'lets go get them' in reference to people that were stalked and identified before being harassed. I imagine a juvenile street gang would have been able to exercise more control and prudent advice that what Parker and Perkiss were able to muster - with one eye on the papers and the other on a mirror.
They willing entertained 'veterans of hate and stalking' such as Curran and OBrien as old and experienced hands, welcoming them into the fold with their tools of trade. They exploited the tactics of TM posters nina_concertina, rodney osook and linz4me of accusing others of what they had done themselves while all the while holding a pretence of properness. But look where they have got themselves - around each corner now they don't know what to expect so they rachet up the hate and dissemination seeming unwilling or unable to recognise the reality that they are exposed already and named in The Auckland High Court.
So yes Reader, hate-sites, no doubt.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
My letter to the hate-site messiah.
Kent,
You'll recall we've discussed defamation before on Counterspin, rather one-sided argument. Because I didn't agree with your interpretation of what defamation is, you as big boss of Counterspin kicked me off the boards. I wonder how you feel about the subject now? I feel a little vindicated.
As you'd imagine I'm not writing to pass the time but to move onto something else you perhaps don't realise about being a publisher. What ever you publish on your boards may well be judged as a release of material into the mainstream media additionally to any other point where it is published. Currently defamatory material is being released from your site into the mainstream cyber space. My suggestion that because you have a number of issues on your plate already is that you don't disregard the harm this material going into cyber-space is causing. In some ways you're granny Herald Kent, whatever you display on your sites (I use the plural) similarly to any printed matter in the Herald, you are responsible for. The printed matter being released from Counterspin could be moving beyond defamation.
Using a strictly pragmatic view you could well be advised to shutup shop with your sites to stop further damage, and using that opportunity settle the matters you already have at hand. You were always a biased publisher Kent, which I'm sure you'd at least generally agree with. But I don't think you appreciated that being a publisher without rules, changing poster's posts and leaving them on line and ridiculing them on the board after they'd been banned for not agreeing with you, holding silent when people made threats against others on your board, or hatched plans to persecute or stalk others was all your own decision, some things happening with your consent and most often with your input. Anyway, that's how I see it Kent and I might well be wrong.
All the best with sorting things out in the best interests of everyone.
yours etc
I'm unaware if Kent was able to attribute the nature of the letter to his decision to publish an anonymous confession that he had earlier held in the not so secret vaults of his not so secret hate-sites. I won't republish the 'confession' suffice to say it was a load of rot eagerly consumed by camp mother and his boy friends. Before I got onto explain why the particular publication constituted defamatory harassment I'll mention the other card up the sleeve for the hate-siters.
This was of course untested 'evidence' that was ruled inadmissible and which now the hate-sites have seized upon to show how truly crazy they are. Of course a reasonable person understands that evidence is only that which is given on oath and which may be tested by cross examination for it's veracity. 'Evidence' that doesn't reach that threshhold is therefore not evidence at all. A distinction which may yet trouble the Minister of Justice should his advisors begin to look at rumour and gossip before making any recommendations on a remedy for David Bain.
Kent decided to call the 'confession' hearsay when it doesn't qualify to be so termed. To this point it is pure fantasy, made my anonymous person who crosses from being a friend of Laniet's to being a teenaged psychologist dealing in recovered memories and auto suggestion. When most people lie they invariably betray themselves and the poor attempt at having been confessed to by this particular anonymous person would even have a soap opera enthusiast made sceptical.
But the real point is that is publication betrays the man. He is completely witless, even having been sued he does not understand what is defamatory and what is not, nor indeed under the role of publisher. Kent thought he was playing marbles, obviously having lost more than a few over the years, and while all of that might be quite harmless, he chose a destrutive path for those he defamed. Kent Parker, we must assume, has at least the intelligence to understand that his 'faithful' followers are generally naive, easily led and up for any entertainment where they can act righteously and attack others. That is Kent's greatest shortcoming, not caring who is hurt, having no capacity to comprehend the damage he has caused.
The publication of the confession into cybermedia given to an 'anonymous' person is defamatory harassment of a type I've described earlier. In this case, as it is directed against David Bain, David would merely need to present the evidence to a Court for findings to show it was defamatory harassment. Kent Parker would be unable to defend it. Kent Parker continues on his not so merry way with no comprehension of the depth of trouble he is in. He may yet realise that he is increasingly presenting as dopey clown admiring himself in a mirror that has already shattered.
Footnote. I must add here that the alleged 'confession' made to this anonymous person was accepted by the 'hangbainers' despite never being presented in Court, while a half dozen or so confessions by Laniet in regards sexual misconduct by her father, to witnesses who gave evidence tested in Court was rejected for a number of reasons, not least that the deceased Laniet was judged by the 'hangbainers' to be unreliable. This is of course by those that 'speak' for the dead family who cannot 'speak' for themselves. I suppose when one is bitter and twisted one can imagine anything.
PS for any readers outside New Zealand, please do not be discouraged into the view that all New Zealanders (kiwis) use brooms for transport and have large warts on their noses. It's fairly uncommon.
You'll recall we've discussed defamation before on Counterspin, rather one-sided argument. Because I didn't agree with your interpretation of what defamation is, you as big boss of Counterspin kicked me off the boards. I wonder how you feel about the subject now? I feel a little vindicated.
As you'd imagine I'm not writing to pass the time but to move onto something else you perhaps don't realise about being a publisher. What ever you publish on your boards may well be judged as a release of material into the mainstream media additionally to any other point where it is published. Currently defamatory material is being released from your site into the mainstream cyber space. My suggestion that because you have a number of issues on your plate already is that you don't disregard the harm this material going into cyber-space is causing. In some ways you're granny Herald Kent, whatever you display on your sites (I use the plural) similarly to any printed matter in the Herald, you are responsible for. The printed matter being released from Counterspin could be moving beyond defamation.
Using a strictly pragmatic view you could well be advised to shutup shop with your sites to stop further damage, and using that opportunity settle the matters you already have at hand. You were always a biased publisher Kent, which I'm sure you'd at least generally agree with. But I don't think you appreciated that being a publisher without rules, changing poster's posts and leaving them on line and ridiculing them on the board after they'd been banned for not agreeing with you, holding silent when people made threats against others on your board, or hatched plans to persecute or stalk others was all your own decision, some things happening with your consent and most often with your input. Anyway, that's how I see it Kent and I might well be wrong.
All the best with sorting things out in the best interests of everyone.
yours etc
I'm unaware if Kent was able to attribute the nature of the letter to his decision to publish an anonymous confession that he had earlier held in the not so secret vaults of his not so secret hate-sites. I won't republish the 'confession' suffice to say it was a load of rot eagerly consumed by camp mother and his boy friends. Before I got onto explain why the particular publication constituted defamatory harassment I'll mention the other card up the sleeve for the hate-siters.
This was of course untested 'evidence' that was ruled inadmissible and which now the hate-sites have seized upon to show how truly crazy they are. Of course a reasonable person understands that evidence is only that which is given on oath and which may be tested by cross examination for it's veracity. 'Evidence' that doesn't reach that threshhold is therefore not evidence at all. A distinction which may yet trouble the Minister of Justice should his advisors begin to look at rumour and gossip before making any recommendations on a remedy for David Bain.
Kent decided to call the 'confession' hearsay when it doesn't qualify to be so termed. To this point it is pure fantasy, made my anonymous person who crosses from being a friend of Laniet's to being a teenaged psychologist dealing in recovered memories and auto suggestion. When most people lie they invariably betray themselves and the poor attempt at having been confessed to by this particular anonymous person would even have a soap opera enthusiast made sceptical.
But the real point is that is publication betrays the man. He is completely witless, even having been sued he does not understand what is defamatory and what is not, nor indeed under the role of publisher. Kent thought he was playing marbles, obviously having lost more than a few over the years, and while all of that might be quite harmless, he chose a destrutive path for those he defamed. Kent Parker, we must assume, has at least the intelligence to understand that his 'faithful' followers are generally naive, easily led and up for any entertainment where they can act righteously and attack others. That is Kent's greatest shortcoming, not caring who is hurt, having no capacity to comprehend the damage he has caused.
The publication of the confession into cybermedia given to an 'anonymous' person is defamatory harassment of a type I've described earlier. In this case, as it is directed against David Bain, David would merely need to present the evidence to a Court for findings to show it was defamatory harassment. Kent Parker would be unable to defend it. Kent Parker continues on his not so merry way with no comprehension of the depth of trouble he is in. He may yet realise that he is increasingly presenting as dopey clown admiring himself in a mirror that has already shattered.
Footnote. I must add here that the alleged 'confession' made to this anonymous person was accepted by the 'hangbainers' despite never being presented in Court, while a half dozen or so confessions by Laniet in regards sexual misconduct by her father, to witnesses who gave evidence tested in Court was rejected for a number of reasons, not least that the deceased Laniet was judged by the 'hangbainers' to be unreliable. This is of course by those that 'speak' for the dead family who cannot 'speak' for themselves. I suppose when one is bitter and twisted one can imagine anything.
PS for any readers outside New Zealand, please do not be discouraged into the view that all New Zealanders (kiwis) use brooms for transport and have large warts on their noses. It's fairly uncommon.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
A trail back to Kent.
Here follows a list lifted from the JFRB site of people who have posted on Trade Me.
Name - Nature of Recorded 'Activity' on TM
DCameron - Defamer
Annette Curran- Stalker, who has revealed posters identities, serial defamer.
Catherine Kennedy - Stalker and defamer.
Lindsay Kennard - Defamer of Counsel in particular, makes unfounded accusations.
Maryanne Newton - Stalker and defamer, readily reveals poster's identities.
Glenda OBrein - Stalker and defamer, readily reveals poster's identities.
Mike Stockdale - Stalker and defamer.
Christine Williams - Stalker and defamer.
The total number of JFRB members identified so far as being posters is 12, 8 are listed above the additional 4 whose identity cannot be confirmed all are recorded as having conducted similar activities to those listed.
To summarise, of known JFRB members that post, or have posted on TM all have either stalked or posted defamatory comment, the majority have done both. Of the total amount of JFRB members who additional to the above 8 are known to be members of JFRB but whose user names on TM are not confirmed at this point, all have conducted the same activities as the known group. Both totals are a 100%. What do they all have in common, being members of hate-sites in a trail that leads back to Kent Parker. A man on a 'crusade' who clearly believes the end justifies the means when it comes to his member's public activities.
User names of the above listed JFRB hate-siters:
DCameron - DCameron
Rita Cochrane - Ret1
Annette Curran - Golfergold
Catherine Kennedy - Cookingwithgas
Lindsay Kennard - linz4me
Maryanne Newton - dustproof
Glenda OBrien - kalnovitch
Mike Stockdale - supersleuth
Christine Williams - misspw/millie231
Of this 8, 6 are now either permanently or temporarily banned. Among the banned are 2of the original 'twisted sisters.' Many of those listed are among posters TM was warned about in November 2009 as to their activities and conduct on TM. It has only been since July 2010 that TM have stopped posters linking to the hate sites. TM have been slow in responding all the way down the track, while TM have dithered or ignored reality these posters have had a field day, many being involved in criminal stalking. They must be stopped and the cybermedia in NZ needs to record they're publishers not dissimilar to the print media, if dissimilar at all.
Footnote;
I have named the above having considered firstly that none of these people are bound to anonymity by any implied or actual confidentiality contract with me in this blog space, and secondly, that no defamatory comment has passed because everything written here is truthful according to the records I have and those within my knowledge.
Name - Nature of Recorded 'Activity' on TM
DCameron - Defamer
Annette Curran- Stalker, who has revealed posters identities, serial defamer.
Catherine Kennedy - Stalker and defamer.
Lindsay Kennard - Defamer of Counsel in particular, makes unfounded accusations.
Maryanne Newton - Stalker and defamer, readily reveals poster's identities.
Glenda OBrein - Stalker and defamer, readily reveals poster's identities.
Mike Stockdale - Stalker and defamer.
Christine Williams - Stalker and defamer.
The total number of JFRB members identified so far as being posters is 12, 8 are listed above the additional 4 whose identity cannot be confirmed all are recorded as having conducted similar activities to those listed.
To summarise, of known JFRB members that post, or have posted on TM all have either stalked or posted defamatory comment, the majority have done both. Of the total amount of JFRB members who additional to the above 8 are known to be members of JFRB but whose user names on TM are not confirmed at this point, all have conducted the same activities as the known group. Both totals are a 100%. What do they all have in common, being members of hate-sites in a trail that leads back to Kent Parker. A man on a 'crusade' who clearly believes the end justifies the means when it comes to his member's public activities.
User names of the above listed JFRB hate-siters:
DCameron - DCameron
Rita Cochrane - Ret1
Annette Curran - Golfergold
Catherine Kennedy - Cookingwithgas
Lindsay Kennard - linz4me
Maryanne Newton - dustproof
Glenda OBrien - kalnovitch
Mike Stockdale - supersleuth
Christine Williams - misspw/millie231
Of this 8, 6 are now either permanently or temporarily banned. Among the banned are 2of the original 'twisted sisters.' Many of those listed are among posters TM was warned about in November 2009 as to their activities and conduct on TM. It has only been since July 2010 that TM have stopped posters linking to the hate sites. TM have been slow in responding all the way down the track, while TM have dithered or ignored reality these posters have had a field day, many being involved in criminal stalking. They must be stopped and the cybermedia in NZ needs to record they're publishers not dissimilar to the print media, if dissimilar at all.
Footnote;
I have named the above having considered firstly that none of these people are bound to anonymity by any implied or actual confidentiality contract with me in this blog space, and secondly, that no defamatory comment has passed because everything written here is truthful according to the records I have and those within my knowledge.
Letters to Kent Parker
1/
From: nostalgia-nz
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Counterspin
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:26:41 +1300
Hi Kent,
I have listed the following matters in paragraph order as a broader perspective of my earlier 2 letters to you, which remain unanswered. I guess you are busy and no one is home at Counterspin because they're out to lunch.
Para a….
I’ve been made aware that following your decision to ban me as nostalgia-nz, you started a thread on the subject (Banning) in which you made comments about the decision and about me which of course I was unable to answer on your site anyway.
I now formally ask you to forward the posts I made and all the responses to them. I also request a copy of the thread you started about me titled Banned and any responses to it. I need to study what I said, and compare it with what others on your site say, to determine if you are not simply running a site preferential to your own views and indeed a site fostering hatred and exclusion of those that don’t share your views.
Para b….
I also would like a copy of your site rules generally, and specifically on the matter of 1) banning those that don’t agree with the sites intention to vilify David Bain (or others) to ensure that he is not compensated for false imprisonment, and to further vilify the Christchurch Jury who found David innocent. There is much hateful and inflammatory material on your site about the Jury. And 2) The site being used (or not used) as a rallying point to encourage or undertake illegal, immoral, activities not in the public interest.
Para c….
I assume that if you believe your site can withstand scrutiny against my allegation that it is a hate site you will be forthcoming in co-operating with my inquiries.
Para d….
I have told you that material from your site has been copied and saved and it could very well be that I have full access to that, however, I think it would be a fair assumption that a site controller on a public message board you will have no objection in releasing the material to me in a formal way so that I can satisfy myself of a position before considering if I might bring your site to the attention of the appropriate authorities including the host of the site or the Ministry of Justice. You're not operating a secret site are you kent, it looks that way.
Para e….
I am aware that prior to Christmas you placed your site into ‘close down’ and I am interested in the reasons for that and what the Counterspin Site’s policy is on the matter of complaints from the public or from legal authorities to reconcile with your ‘close down’ decision prior to Christmas. The ‘closedown,’ along with anecdotal and other material evidence displayed that Counterspin operate in at least two distinct ways. Firstly, by largely excluding any views countering your own, fostering others to reach Counterspin’s views with inaccurate and misleading material, and by failing to respond in a measured, ordered fashion to complaints. Secondly, by encouraging members to heckle, band together against other posters on other sites and complaining at any opportunity to have them banned. In both these ways members of the public are targeted, information is sought about them and members are encouraged to stalk and harass them. Included in this is a claim by a one of your sponsors, Mike Stockdale, that he approached a Crown witness to scrutinise their evidence, which I have said earlier may be an attempt to pervert the course of justice (by attempting to have the witness change their evidence, or by using the information on your boards or elsewhere in an attempt to gain support for your petition,) and now say, additionally, that had that witness been aware, or become aware of Stockdale's connection to your site and others she may have considered she was being intimidated. I am also aware of identities being revealed, of calls to ‘go get’ people, of physical threats, of solicitations to source information about those yourself and other Counterspin members consider as a threat to your activities and purpose. This happens on line, and there is much anecdotal and material evidence that it happens off line by email and other means of communication - some of this was displayed during the ‘close down’ and would indicate a propensity to initiate strategies that display a willingness to adopt subversion. This all happens on your boards without comment, clearly showing the sites acceptance, tolerance, and initiation of such behaviours.
Para f...
Do you personally accept full responsibility for the activities on your site and that which might follow from them? And do you understand that your site might be seen as a party to all illegal behaviour resulting from the activities of your members and that private transmissions between your members that result, or have resulted in, any illegal behaviour are recoverable to the appropriate authorities in the instance of a complaint from myself or others?
You may feel assured that I have strong and complete supporting information regarding everything I have said in this letter, everything I said on Counterspin and everything I said in my two previous letters to you.
Additional to the material I have requested from you, I feel it is very important that your answer, in detail, issues I have raised in Para e and f above. I note that on your site much is made about suppression orders, the truth being told and so forth, if you are consistent in those beliefs I feel confident that you will respond with the information I have requested and explanations regarding the issues in Para e.
Resulting from your full, and anticipated co-operation, and at your request, I will consider a response to your material as to what I believe a reasonable, informed, person could conclude is (or, is not – as the case maybe) in fact evidence of your site not being a hate site active in cyber stalking, bullying and harassment before considering my options.
On the basis that this is a straight forward request, I invite you to respond by Tuesday the 23rd March or sooner. Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully
Nostalgia-nz
2/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Your site.
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:05:46 +1300
Hi Kent,
Clearly you don't have what it takes to try to disguise that your site is not a hatesite. I gather you're no spring chicken but anyway education is one thing but pure intelligence is another and it's obvious you missed out on both. You should reconsider your position, you are achieving nothing, only proving that you are a adminstrator of a hate site that refuses alternative views and whose ambition is to persecute others with misinformation and ignorance. You may think you are holding a position that will prevent David obtaining compensation and of course, like your dream that Karam asked the courts for a Pardon, you're wrong. Good luck with that.
Nos.
3/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Hate Sites
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:25:33 +1300
Hi Kent,
This is something else to lose some sleep over. Your site is plainly full of derogatory posts about real, named people. Your site identifies targets on other message boards to 'go after.' Your site outs, or attempts to out, real people's identities on other legit message boards. Members of your site target other posters on other sites to have them banned. Vic Perkiss has made public threats against Bain and Karam and he is a member of your site. Your site is home for a poster named 'supur' who brags about contacting a Crown witness and speaking with her about her evidence. Supur is so stupid he doesn't see that contacting a Crown witness about their evidence may well be a criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course justice. I have numerous examples of your members cyber stalking and harassing. The common core event is that it is all linked to your site Kent. That is why your site is hopeless, infiltrated and recorded but you already knew that didn't you Kent? It's an unsolveable problem for you in that you know can't divorce yourself from your own activities or those of your fellows - you'll all lumped together, achieving nothing in a hate site. I could go on Kent, but I suspect you're incapable of absorbing anything but the smallest doses of reality. You will have noted that I anticipated being banned from your site and said so in at least two posts, you're very predictable Kent, incapable of walking into traps you set yourself, incapable of seeing that your closed up, only for hater's site, is visible for what it is to the outside world and that despite your claims you're not aligned with 30% of the population, although perhaps 30% may disagree with the verdict, the greater NZ population (including the 30%) don't agree with Jury's and the Justice system being attacked. Congratulations on the evidence you have provided so far and thanking you in anticipation of the more that will follow.
Nos
And the most recent, 18/7/10
Kent,
You'll recall we've discussed defamation before on Counterspin, rather one-sided argument. Because I didn't agree with your interpretation of what defamation is, you as big boss of Counterspin kicked me off the boards. I wonder how you feel about the subject now? I feel a little vindicated.
As you'd imagine I'm not writing to pass the time but to move onto something else you perhaps don't realise about being a publisher. What ever you publish on your boards may well be judged as a release of material into the mainstream media additionally to any other point where it is published. Currently defamatory material is being released from your site into the mainstream cyber space. My suggestion that because you have a number of issues on your plate already is that you don't disregard the harm this material going into cyber-space is causing. In some ways you're granny Herald Kent, whatever you display on your sites (I use the plural) similarly to any printed matter in the Herald, you are responsible for. The printed matter being released from Counterspin could be moving beyond defamation.
Using a strictly pragmatic view you could well be advised to shutup shop with your sites to stop further damage, and using that opportunity settle the matters you already have at hand. You were always a biased publisher Kent, which I'm sure you'd at least generally agree with. But I don't think you appreciated that being a publisher without rules, changing poster's posts and leaving them on line and ridiculing them on the board after they'd been banned for not agreeing with you, holding silent when people made threats against others on your board, or hatched plans to persecute or stalk others was all your own decision, some things happening with your consent and most often with your input. Anyway, that's how I see it Kent and I might well be wrong.
All the best with sorting things out in the best interests of everyone.
yours
etc
From: nostalgia-nz
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Counterspin
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:26:41 +1300
Hi Kent,
I have listed the following matters in paragraph order as a broader perspective of my earlier 2 letters to you, which remain unanswered. I guess you are busy and no one is home at Counterspin because they're out to lunch.
Para a….
I’ve been made aware that following your decision to ban me as nostalgia-nz, you started a thread on the subject (Banning) in which you made comments about the decision and about me which of course I was unable to answer on your site anyway.
I now formally ask you to forward the posts I made and all the responses to them. I also request a copy of the thread you started about me titled Banned and any responses to it. I need to study what I said, and compare it with what others on your site say, to determine if you are not simply running a site preferential to your own views and indeed a site fostering hatred and exclusion of those that don’t share your views.
Para b….
I also would like a copy of your site rules generally, and specifically on the matter of 1) banning those that don’t agree with the sites intention to vilify David Bain (or others) to ensure that he is not compensated for false imprisonment, and to further vilify the Christchurch Jury who found David innocent. There is much hateful and inflammatory material on your site about the Jury. And 2) The site being used (or not used) as a rallying point to encourage or undertake illegal, immoral, activities not in the public interest.
Para c….
I assume that if you believe your site can withstand scrutiny against my allegation that it is a hate site you will be forthcoming in co-operating with my inquiries.
Para d….
I have told you that material from your site has been copied and saved and it could very well be that I have full access to that, however, I think it would be a fair assumption that a site controller on a public message board you will have no objection in releasing the material to me in a formal way so that I can satisfy myself of a position before considering if I might bring your site to the attention of the appropriate authorities including the host of the site or the Ministry of Justice. You're not operating a secret site are you kent, it looks that way.
Para e….
I am aware that prior to Christmas you placed your site into ‘close down’ and I am interested in the reasons for that and what the Counterspin Site’s policy is on the matter of complaints from the public or from legal authorities to reconcile with your ‘close down’ decision prior to Christmas. The ‘closedown,’ along with anecdotal and other material evidence displayed that Counterspin operate in at least two distinct ways. Firstly, by largely excluding any views countering your own, fostering others to reach Counterspin’s views with inaccurate and misleading material, and by failing to respond in a measured, ordered fashion to complaints. Secondly, by encouraging members to heckle, band together against other posters on other sites and complaining at any opportunity to have them banned. In both these ways members of the public are targeted, information is sought about them and members are encouraged to stalk and harass them. Included in this is a claim by a one of your sponsors, Mike Stockdale, that he approached a Crown witness to scrutinise their evidence, which I have said earlier may be an attempt to pervert the course of justice (by attempting to have the witness change their evidence, or by using the information on your boards or elsewhere in an attempt to gain support for your petition,) and now say, additionally, that had that witness been aware, or become aware of Stockdale's connection to your site and others she may have considered she was being intimidated. I am also aware of identities being revealed, of calls to ‘go get’ people, of physical threats, of solicitations to source information about those yourself and other Counterspin members consider as a threat to your activities and purpose. This happens on line, and there is much anecdotal and material evidence that it happens off line by email and other means of communication - some of this was displayed during the ‘close down’ and would indicate a propensity to initiate strategies that display a willingness to adopt subversion. This all happens on your boards without comment, clearly showing the sites acceptance, tolerance, and initiation of such behaviours.
Para f...
Do you personally accept full responsibility for the activities on your site and that which might follow from them? And do you understand that your site might be seen as a party to all illegal behaviour resulting from the activities of your members and that private transmissions between your members that result, or have resulted in, any illegal behaviour are recoverable to the appropriate authorities in the instance of a complaint from myself or others?
You may feel assured that I have strong and complete supporting information regarding everything I have said in this letter, everything I said on Counterspin and everything I said in my two previous letters to you.
Additional to the material I have requested from you, I feel it is very important that your answer, in detail, issues I have raised in Para e and f above. I note that on your site much is made about suppression orders, the truth being told and so forth, if you are consistent in those beliefs I feel confident that you will respond with the information I have requested and explanations regarding the issues in Para e.
Resulting from your full, and anticipated co-operation, and at your request, I will consider a response to your material as to what I believe a reasonable, informed, person could conclude is (or, is not – as the case maybe) in fact evidence of your site not being a hate site active in cyber stalking, bullying and harassment before considering my options.
On the basis that this is a straight forward request, I invite you to respond by Tuesday the 23rd March or sooner. Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully
Nostalgia-nz
2/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Your site.
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:05:46 +1300
Hi Kent,
Clearly you don't have what it takes to try to disguise that your site is not a hatesite. I gather you're no spring chicken but anyway education is one thing but pure intelligence is another and it's obvious you missed out on both. You should reconsider your position, you are achieving nothing, only proving that you are a adminstrator of a hate site that refuses alternative views and whose ambition is to persecute others with misinformation and ignorance. You may think you are holding a position that will prevent David obtaining compensation and of course, like your dream that Karam asked the courts for a Pardon, you're wrong. Good luck with that.
Nos.
3/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Hate Sites
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:25:33 +1300
Hi Kent,
This is something else to lose some sleep over. Your site is plainly full of derogatory posts about real, named people. Your site identifies targets on other message boards to 'go after.' Your site outs, or attempts to out, real people's identities on other legit message boards. Members of your site target other posters on other sites to have them banned. Vic Perkiss has made public threats against Bain and Karam and he is a member of your site. Your site is home for a poster named 'supur' who brags about contacting a Crown witness and speaking with her about her evidence. Supur is so stupid he doesn't see that contacting a Crown witness about their evidence may well be a criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course justice. I have numerous examples of your members cyber stalking and harassing. The common core event is that it is all linked to your site Kent. That is why your site is hopeless, infiltrated and recorded but you already knew that didn't you Kent? It's an unsolveable problem for you in that you know can't divorce yourself from your own activities or those of your fellows - you'll all lumped together, achieving nothing in a hate site. I could go on Kent, but I suspect you're incapable of absorbing anything but the smallest doses of reality. You will have noted that I anticipated being banned from your site and said so in at least two posts, you're very predictable Kent, incapable of walking into traps you set yourself, incapable of seeing that your closed up, only for hater's site, is visible for what it is to the outside world and that despite your claims you're not aligned with 30% of the population, although perhaps 30% may disagree with the verdict, the greater NZ population (including the 30%) don't agree with Jury's and the Justice system being attacked. Congratulations on the evidence you have provided so far and thanking you in anticipation of the more that will follow.
Nos
And the most recent, 18/7/10
Kent,
You'll recall we've discussed defamation before on Counterspin, rather one-sided argument. Because I didn't agree with your interpretation of what defamation is, you as big boss of Counterspin kicked me off the boards. I wonder how you feel about the subject now? I feel a little vindicated.
As you'd imagine I'm not writing to pass the time but to move onto something else you perhaps don't realise about being a publisher. What ever you publish on your boards may well be judged as a release of material into the mainstream media additionally to any other point where it is published. Currently defamatory material is being released from your site into the mainstream cyber space. My suggestion that because you have a number of issues on your plate already is that you don't disregard the harm this material going into cyber-space is causing. In some ways you're granny Herald Kent, whatever you display on your sites (I use the plural) similarly to any printed matter in the Herald, you are responsible for. The printed matter being released from Counterspin could be moving beyond defamation.
Using a strictly pragmatic view you could well be advised to shutup shop with your sites to stop further damage, and using that opportunity settle the matters you already have at hand. You were always a biased publisher Kent, which I'm sure you'd at least generally agree with. But I don't think you appreciated that being a publisher without rules, changing poster's posts and leaving them on line and ridiculing them on the board after they'd been banned for not agreeing with you, holding silent when people made threats against others on your board, or hatched plans to persecute or stalk others was all your own decision, some things happening with your consent and most often with your input. Anyway, that's how I see it Kent and I might well be wrong.
All the best with sorting things out in the best interests of everyone.
yours
etc
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)