No ,ta,you are lying about David Bain being strip-searched.You know full well that nobody has ever said that they saw him being strip-searched.Dr Pryde never said that,and I bet if you were to ask D/S Dunne or Constable Van Turnhout,who were in the room with David Bain when Dr Pryde examined him,they would tell you he was not strip searched.And what is more,David Bain knows he was not strip searched.Dr Pryde asked him about those bruises on his head,and asked him if he had any other bruises.He wouldn't have asked him that question if he had strip-serached him,because he would have seen those other marks.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:52 pm, Wed 15 Dec #14790
The above is one example of the 100s of times he has made this stupid claim. He doesn't have the brains to work out that proving David had the scratches on his chest the morning of the killings would have been helpful to the Crown Case. But they never proved it, not one person attending the scene made the claim. Not one Crown witness claimed David Bain was never strip searched, but the records of the examination and at least two police officers confirmed it. It would take an ex girlfriend to make a claim about the scratches days after the murders, backed up by a prison officer who only took 15 years to 'remember.'
Repeat, not one witness attending the scene, or the examination of David saw any scratches. To now say that is the defence's fault because they didn't ask some question or answer is pathetic and prejudicial. But it goes further the Crown never contested that there had been a strip search and that equally proves that it happened. Idiot Stockdale, a pedo-apologist, proven liar and stalker suggests that the Crown were happy to sit on their hands over the issue which most damning to their case. The fact they chose not to challenge it was because it was true, no more or less, David Bain was strip searched and no evidence of scratches on his chest were recorded, not in the first trial or the second.
You are a lying piece of crap Stockdale without the necessary intelligence to understand the illogical rantings you construct. Much like your idiotic assertion that Mrs Laney was a defence witness. You're a sheer idiot.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Mike Stockdale threatening defamation?
Another defamatory remark. See you in court.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:09 am, Fri 14 Jan #15415
Here's a remark for you Mike, you are a deliberate and proven liar and stalker. Repeat a deliberate and proven liar and stalker. Let's see if you have any courage to come out of the shadow of your persecutory assault on David Bain in what you now admit was an opinion your reached without knowing the evidence, and still don't know the evidence.
I'm going to help you out and put up more examples of your lying Stockdale, there are tens if not hundreds of them.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:09 am, Fri 14 Jan #15415
Here's a remark for you Mike, you are a deliberate and proven liar and stalker. Repeat a deliberate and proven liar and stalker. Let's see if you have any courage to come out of the shadow of your persecutory assault on David Bain in what you now admit was an opinion your reached without knowing the evidence, and still don't know the evidence.
I'm going to help you out and put up more examples of your lying Stockdale, there are tens if not hundreds of them.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Fiddler Ralph Taylor having a tanty just because he got caught out bull pooping..
What a tanty Ralphie, I bet you feel all fiddly. So because nobody told you, that's their fault. But hang on Ralphie if you can stay out of the bike sheds for 5 mins, how do you expect to be taken as anything but a dirty fiddler persecutor when you're telling lies all the time, then when you get caught out you blame other people for not telling you.
You're a dirty fiddler liar Ralph Taylor.
These are not lies or untruths.I to asked for sources regarding blood in the barrel sometime ago but none of you came forth including yourself cybernana. I googled and searched and came up with nothing.However the transcripts did mentioned as I later learnt that Mr Hentscell did find blood in the barrel.But I did qualify my query by asking whether the blood was DNA profiled or cross matched for blood group.My information was that it was not.
But the in fact the the issue regarding blood in the barrel is entirely problematic and rather a non issue.This is because Robin's fingerprints were never found on his son's rifle and the reality is smudges,wipes etc do not make fingerprints.But David did leave his pristine prints on his gun.But the Defence have attempted to cloud and obscure the issue by suggesting his prints belonged to an earlier period (some several months earlier)and perhaps the blood on the rifle itself was maybe animal blood.Don't you really think that stretches.credulaity somewhat?I dont't think they say this about Stephen's fingerprints found on the silencer.Also the fact that how can it be that David's fingerprints ,belonging to a hunting trip, actually remained intact after the shooting spree at Every St. Cyber and co the reality and fact that Robin's prints were not found on the gun has to be faced and not explained away by Defence obfuscation .Again that reality is ever so transparent if you accept as some of DB supporters claim Robin had to clear a misfeed before topping himself.Surely then he would of left his finger prints on the rifle.
Edited by jeeves-50 at 8:37 pm, Thu 13 Jan
Quote
jeeves-50 (3 ) 8:27 pm, Thu 13 Jan #15366
You're a dirty fiddler liar Ralph Taylor.
These are not lies or untruths.I to asked for sources regarding blood in the barrel sometime ago but none of you came forth including yourself cybernana. I googled and searched and came up with nothing.However the transcripts did mentioned as I later learnt that Mr Hentscell did find blood in the barrel.But I did qualify my query by asking whether the blood was DNA profiled or cross matched for blood group.My information was that it was not.
But the in fact the the issue regarding blood in the barrel is entirely problematic and rather a non issue.This is because Robin's fingerprints were never found on his son's rifle and the reality is smudges,wipes etc do not make fingerprints.But David did leave his pristine prints on his gun.But the Defence have attempted to cloud and obscure the issue by suggesting his prints belonged to an earlier period (some several months earlier)and perhaps the blood on the rifle itself was maybe animal blood.Don't you really think that stretches.credulaity somewhat?I dont't think they say this about Stephen's fingerprints found on the silencer.Also the fact that how can it be that David's fingerprints ,belonging to a hunting trip, actually remained intact after the shooting spree at Every St. Cyber and co the reality and fact that Robin's prints were not found on the gun has to be faced and not explained away by Defence obfuscation .Again that reality is ever so transparent if you accept as some of DB supporters claim Robin had to clear a misfeed before topping himself.Surely then he would of left his finger prints on the rifle.
Edited by jeeves-50 at 8:37 pm, Thu 13 Jan
Quote
jeeves-50 (3 ) 8:27 pm, Thu 13 Jan #15366
Stockdale's lies with a cameo appearance from fiddler Ralph bro.
I thought a cameo appearance from itchy pants Taylor about the right hand of Robin he claims was uninjured. I'm recording the number of lies they tell in order to persecute David Bain, and I count repeats additionally.
No demonstration showed him with his right foot on a chair for the simple reason that it would have been impossible for him to have committed suicide with his foot in that position.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:24 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:16 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15174
They are also well aware that he could not have shot himself with his right foot on a chair. But they seem to have forgotten one important point.The killer did not wear shoes,hence those luminol sockprints.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:22 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:21 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15175
But Karam went on to say that Robin Bain would have had his right shoe on a chair.But there was no demonstration showing Robin Bain with his right shoe on a chair,it was his right knee that was on the chair.And because there was no such demonstration,one can only presume that was because Robin Bain could not have committed suicide with his right shoe on a chair,as opposed to his right knee. And apparently standing upright does not work,either,because blood spatter from Robin Bain's head wound could not have travelled that far. Karam went on to say that Robin Bain would have had to have had the left side of his head pointing down to the right,and,if that was the case David Bain would have virtually have had to be lying on the floor taking the angle of the shot into account. But I have always thought that Robin Bain could have been sitting when he was shot.Barbara Neasmith,the only person alive to have seen Robin Bain praying said she saw him sitting on his bean bag. So I wonder if Robin Bain was sitting with his head tilted to the left,could David Bain have shot him from a crouching position. I don't know if the angle of the bullet wound would fit this theory,but if it did,then that would explain how that blood spatter came to be on Robin Bain's right shoe.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 9:46 am, Fri 24 Dec #14975
And those bloodspots could not got onto his right shoe from him committing suicide with his right shoe on a chair.He could not have held the rifle against his head with his right shoe on a chair,the distance between rifle butt on the floor and that head wound would have been too great.The silencer would have had to be twice as long. I wonder what they will come up with next?.
Edited by supersleuth at 3:48 pm, Mon 27 Dec
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:45 pm, Mon 27 Dec #14994
And he couldn't have got them from having his right shoe on a chair,as Karam suggested in that debate,because that would have taken his head too far away from the silencer for it to have been a close contact shot leaving his blood in the barrel.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 12:48 pm, Sun 2 Jan #15031
Another question that puzzles me.Why did Robin have no bruises and other abrasions on his right hand.Ah yes and only a minute fleck of blood on was it his small index finger?
Edited by jeeves-50 at 5:00 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
jeeves-50 (3 ) 4:59 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15176
I take your point about his right hand be free of marks.Robin Bain was right-handed,so that is the hand one would expect to have marks on it,had he been in a fight.But those marks on his left hand probably came from him repairing the spouting.David Bain's supporters say they happened within 12 hours of him dying,but a close reading of the transcript proves this not to be the case.Those marks could have been 24 hours old,or even older.
Edited by supersleuth at 6:54 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 6:50 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15177
But he also says that Robin Bain had his right foot on a chair,but Robin Bain could not have shot himself from close range with his right foot on a chair. I am saying David Bain shot his father,but I don't know why Robin Bain would have his head inclined to the right. Would David Bain have done something to have caused his father to look to the right?.Did he feel he needed to have his father looking to the right so as to get a better angle for the shot?.He needed to make it look like suicide,after all.Maybe he tossed that bullet that was found in the lounge on to that table that was to Robin Bain's right. Or maybe it was just that Kaycee came into the room just as David was about to shoot his father. I would welcome any other suggestions as to why Robin Bain would have had his head inclined to the right.
Edited by supersleuth at 9:11 am, Mon 10 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 9:07 am, Mon 10 Jan #15183
I don't expect this is a world record for bullshi...... by Stockdale I've produced above, but it shows how much he'll lie about a situation he claimed couldn't happen (Robin's suicide.) His only consistency is lying, guess work and telling people what happened on a 'believe me, I'm right basis,) he does this as an attack on our Justice System, he claims a miscarriage of Justice and trys to convince us with lies. The man is sick, twisted, liar with no regard for the sanctity of language or truth.
No demonstration showed him with his right foot on a chair for the simple reason that it would have been impossible for him to have committed suicide with his foot in that position.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:24 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:16 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15174
They are also well aware that he could not have shot himself with his right foot on a chair. But they seem to have forgotten one important point.The killer did not wear shoes,hence those luminol sockprints.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:22 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:21 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15175
But Karam went on to say that Robin Bain would have had his right shoe on a chair.But there was no demonstration showing Robin Bain with his right shoe on a chair,it was his right knee that was on the chair.And because there was no such demonstration,one can only presume that was because Robin Bain could not have committed suicide with his right shoe on a chair,as opposed to his right knee. And apparently standing upright does not work,either,because blood spatter from Robin Bain's head wound could not have travelled that far. Karam went on to say that Robin Bain would have had to have had the left side of his head pointing down to the right,and,if that was the case David Bain would have virtually have had to be lying on the floor taking the angle of the shot into account. But I have always thought that Robin Bain could have been sitting when he was shot.Barbara Neasmith,the only person alive to have seen Robin Bain praying said she saw him sitting on his bean bag. So I wonder if Robin Bain was sitting with his head tilted to the left,could David Bain have shot him from a crouching position. I don't know if the angle of the bullet wound would fit this theory,but if it did,then that would explain how that blood spatter came to be on Robin Bain's right shoe.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 9:46 am, Fri 24 Dec #14975
And those bloodspots could not got onto his right shoe from him committing suicide with his right shoe on a chair.He could not have held the rifle against his head with his right shoe on a chair,the distance between rifle butt on the floor and that head wound would have been too great.The silencer would have had to be twice as long. I wonder what they will come up with next?.
Edited by supersleuth at 3:48 pm, Mon 27 Dec
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:45 pm, Mon 27 Dec #14994
And he couldn't have got them from having his right shoe on a chair,as Karam suggested in that debate,because that would have taken his head too far away from the silencer for it to have been a close contact shot leaving his blood in the barrel.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 12:48 pm, Sun 2 Jan #15031
Another question that puzzles me.Why did Robin have no bruises and other abrasions on his right hand.Ah yes and only a minute fleck of blood on was it his small index finger?
Edited by jeeves-50 at 5:00 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
jeeves-50 (3 ) 4:59 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15176
I take your point about his right hand be free of marks.Robin Bain was right-handed,so that is the hand one would expect to have marks on it,had he been in a fight.But those marks on his left hand probably came from him repairing the spouting.David Bain's supporters say they happened within 12 hours of him dying,but a close reading of the transcript proves this not to be the case.Those marks could have been 24 hours old,or even older.
Edited by supersleuth at 6:54 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 6:50 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15177
But he also says that Robin Bain had his right foot on a chair,but Robin Bain could not have shot himself from close range with his right foot on a chair. I am saying David Bain shot his father,but I don't know why Robin Bain would have his head inclined to the right. Would David Bain have done something to have caused his father to look to the right?.Did he feel he needed to have his father looking to the right so as to get a better angle for the shot?.He needed to make it look like suicide,after all.Maybe he tossed that bullet that was found in the lounge on to that table that was to Robin Bain's right. Or maybe it was just that Kaycee came into the room just as David was about to shoot his father. I would welcome any other suggestions as to why Robin Bain would have had his head inclined to the right.
Edited by supersleuth at 9:11 am, Mon 10 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 9:07 am, Mon 10 Jan #15183
I don't expect this is a world record for bullshi...... by Stockdale I've produced above, but it shows how much he'll lie about a situation he claimed couldn't happen (Robin's suicide.) His only consistency is lying, guess work and telling people what happened on a 'believe me, I'm right basis,) he does this as an attack on our Justice System, he claims a miscarriage of Justice and trys to convince us with lies. The man is sick, twisted, liar with no regard for the sanctity of language or truth.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Meathead Mike Stockdale having a bad day....
I can understand why you thought it had time to go through it's cycle,because you thought the police did not find Arawa's body until 6.50am,instead of which they actually found her body about 17 minutes before that. And do you also accept that it wasn't face paint on Stephen,just a small piece of red from a pencil,and a small speck of paint from a nearby desk.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 6:27 pm, Wed 12 Jan #15324
Old lunk head thinks the Police discovered Arawa's body before they even arrived at the house. Good boy lunk head, you're doing well - soon you'll be famous world-wide as a lying idiot. They'll be replacing clowns heads of ping pong ball games in side shows to be mirror images of you and thousands of ping pong balls will be disappearing down your big gob everyday. It'll be payback for the world after all the crap you've spouted, if you left NZ tomorrow the insanity levels here would fall by 3000%. You must be so proud, coming from humble beginnings as office boy to being a world class lunkhead moron.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 6:27 pm, Wed 12 Jan #15324
Old lunk head thinks the Police discovered Arawa's body before they even arrived at the house. Good boy lunk head, you're doing well - soon you'll be famous world-wide as a lying idiot. They'll be replacing clowns heads of ping pong ball games in side shows to be mirror images of you and thousands of ping pong balls will be disappearing down your big gob everyday. It'll be payback for the world after all the crap you've spouted, if you left NZ tomorrow the insanity levels here would fall by 3000%. You must be so proud, coming from humble beginnings as office boy to being a world class lunkhead moron.
The name of one of Rachael Membery's goat husbands....
He's called 'bump' and she seems to have lost him on the JFRB thread on TM because she calls out to him there. Either that or it might be a word for a goat mating ritual. I know I encouraged her to marry those old goats but I never imagined she take that as a green light for farm paddock activities on a public message board. But eehaw anyway, hooves up and all that.
Even when 'fessing up' Stockdale still lies.
As for being "shown up",well I do admit to making a couple of mistakes.I remember shortly after I started posting I said that the opticians receptionist had made a note that David Bain had been wearing his mother's glasses when he brought his in to be repaired. But it turned out it was from a previous visit.cyber chipped me on that one for a couple of weeks.And then there was one where I said Denise Laney was a defence witness.I got that from the Court of Appeal hearings report,turned out it was a typo. I can't recall any others off the top of my head. But really best you don't debate with me,ta,you know I will always get the better of you.
Edited by supersleuth at 10:57 am, Wed 12 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:53 am, Wed 12 Jan #15271
The less of Stockdale being 'shown up' is fairly exhaustive, but here's something of a summary.
1/ He said there was no blood found in the rifle barrel.
2/He said there was no blood found on Robin's right shoe.
3/He said there are no published photographs in the press of any suicide demonstrations from the trial.
4/He said Robin couldn't have reached the silencer when suiciding.
5/He said that Robin couldn't have suicided with the silencer on the rifle.
6/He said a reproduction of a foot print was actually the print.
7/He said that Sanderson's testimony wasn't material to the trial or the previous MOJ.
8/He said that the blood droplets couldn't have got on Robin's shoe when he suicided.
9/ He said there were no blood smears on Robin's hands.
10/ He said there were no injuries to Robin right hand.
Well, that's 13 including what he 'admitted' above. One of those admissions shows his absolute stupidity in that he couldn't follow that the defence appeal aspects of the Crown case, new evidence, directions to the jury and so forth - they don't appeal evidence given or not given by their own witnesses, which shows what a bloody idiot the guy is with his insistence that Denise Laney was a defence witness. That he couldn't figure that out was an early indicator of what a dingbat moron he was going to prove to be.
Whoops better add another important 2.
11. He said David wasn't stripped searched.
12. He said intimate samples weren't taken from David.
Edited by supersleuth at 10:57 am, Wed 12 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:53 am, Wed 12 Jan #15271
The less of Stockdale being 'shown up' is fairly exhaustive, but here's something of a summary.
1/ He said there was no blood found in the rifle barrel.
2/He said there was no blood found on Robin's right shoe.
3/He said there are no published photographs in the press of any suicide demonstrations from the trial.
4/He said Robin couldn't have reached the silencer when suiciding.
5/He said that Robin couldn't have suicided with the silencer on the rifle.
6/He said a reproduction of a foot print was actually the print.
7/He said that Sanderson's testimony wasn't material to the trial or the previous MOJ.
8/He said that the blood droplets couldn't have got on Robin's shoe when he suicided.
9/ He said there were no blood smears on Robin's hands.
10/ He said there were no injuries to Robin right hand.
Well, that's 13 including what he 'admitted' above. One of those admissions shows his absolute stupidity in that he couldn't follow that the defence appeal aspects of the Crown case, new evidence, directions to the jury and so forth - they don't appeal evidence given or not given by their own witnesses, which shows what a bloody idiot the guy is with his insistence that Denise Laney was a defence witness. That he couldn't figure that out was an early indicator of what a dingbat moron he was going to prove to be.
Whoops better add another important 2.
11. He said David wasn't stripped searched.
12. He said intimate samples weren't taken from David.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)