In what often seems like dark times growing darker as the world insulates itself from responsibility of ravaging the earth and caring little for what is laid waste or destroyed for future generations, what a bold move by Germany, a definitive, logical and reasoned decision to do away with nuclear power by 2022.
I read with interest today the comments of some worldwide who ridicule the German decision as a backward and unsustainable step for this modern age. But I cannot help but feel that Germany have made a wholly sustainable decision with a confidence that belies their role of being able to adapt, to sustain hard work and fresh ideas, the very thing that makes them, as I read today, 'Europe's economic powerhouse.'
I am also reminded of the boldness of New Zealand in rejecting the visiting of nuclear powered warships all those years ago when it was assumed this country was a nondescript copy of the western will. So I salute my own country now, for it's vision and strength that played a part in the world beginning to recognise that it is those that stand apart that are leaders in the moments of time, those that question the speed with which life passes and wonder where the quality of life has gone, and what it being forwarded for those that follow us today.
But this moment is for Germany, for taking a fresh look at what is consumed and the danger of the waste that results. For accepting the challenge that if humans can fly into space, invent technology and step away from warfare, then humans can easily embrace a love for the planet and one another.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Deb Coates, enlightened judgement on high from kookybelle...
The fact that this "witness" was even allowed to give his now judged to have been " untruthful evidence" speaks volumes as to the integrity or otherwise of the defence, in my opinion. The hours billed for would seem to indicate there should have been plenty of time to investigate his story. Bruce connected the dots with far fewer resources, and I am happy that the police have endorsed his findings.
Edited by kulkkulbelle at 10:49 pm, Mon 30 May
Quote
kulkkulbelle (398 ) 10:46 pm, Mon 30 May #32293
frank_m wrote:
I'm bloody UNhappy that the cops aren't investigating it further!! All they've done is slandered the guy, then walked away. We're no closer to the truth.
F****n unhappy.
Slandered HIM fgs - what about sparing a thought for Robin and Margaret Bain's wider family and friends who believe a man who murdered 5 of their nearest and dearest, not only walks free, but that one of the murdered people has been framed by the defence.
Edited by kulkkulbelle at 11:11 pm, Mon 30 May
Quote
kulkkulbelle (398 ) 11:10 pm, Mon 30 May #32294
Look, she's using the old transparent shield 'in my opinion.' What a nutter. Speaks volume of the integrity of the defence she says, overlooking for a small moment that she is the only person in the world who has a pathologists report that determines that Laniet 'never had a baby.' But poor old Coatsy doesn't want to show that to anybody despite endorsing a 'judgement' by the Police who have no role in determining Court findings only to gather evidence which in the case of Daryl they've been totally unable to do. She says that Bruce connected the dots, but even considering for a moment that he had, what difference would it make to the failed Crown case. But queen kooky 'is happy that the police have endorsed his findings.' Makes it sort of sound like the Court of Appeal but without judges being involved, go kooky kooky.
Then the good old reliable 'spare a thought' for Robin's family. Well kooky, as a Jury have already decided Robin spared no thoughts for his family, he killed them and he wasn't thinking of his wider family either - not that they'd had a lot to do with him either, don't forget that Kooky.
As someone reports above all they (the Police - not all the Police we are sure to discover, when the inquiry is complete) did was 'slander' defame Daryl and walk away, denied him natural justice and due process. But that's okay with kooky because she a pedo-bro supporter.
Edited by kulkkulbelle at 10:49 pm, Mon 30 May
Quote
kulkkulbelle (398 ) 10:46 pm, Mon 30 May #32293
frank_m wrote:
I'm bloody UNhappy that the cops aren't investigating it further!! All they've done is slandered the guy, then walked away. We're no closer to the truth.
F****n unhappy.
Slandered HIM fgs - what about sparing a thought for Robin and Margaret Bain's wider family and friends who believe a man who murdered 5 of their nearest and dearest, not only walks free, but that one of the murdered people has been framed by the defence.
Edited by kulkkulbelle at 11:11 pm, Mon 30 May
Quote
kulkkulbelle (398 ) 11:10 pm, Mon 30 May #32294
Look, she's using the old transparent shield 'in my opinion.' What a nutter. Speaks volume of the integrity of the defence she says, overlooking for a small moment that she is the only person in the world who has a pathologists report that determines that Laniet 'never had a baby.' But poor old Coatsy doesn't want to show that to anybody despite endorsing a 'judgement' by the Police who have no role in determining Court findings only to gather evidence which in the case of Daryl they've been totally unable to do. She says that Bruce connected the dots, but even considering for a moment that he had, what difference would it make to the failed Crown case. But queen kooky 'is happy that the police have endorsed his findings.' Makes it sort of sound like the Court of Appeal but without judges being involved, go kooky kooky.
Then the good old reliable 'spare a thought' for Robin's family. Well kooky, as a Jury have already decided Robin spared no thoughts for his family, he killed them and he wasn't thinking of his wider family either - not that they'd had a lot to do with him either, don't forget that Kooky.
As someone reports above all they (the Police - not all the Police we are sure to discover, when the inquiry is complete) did was 'slander' defame Daryl and walk away, denied him natural justice and due process. But that's okay with kooky because she a pedo-bro supporter.
A few more statistics for you Ralphie....
Hi Ralphie, I bet you've been having a lot of fun today snickering and picking your nose. Here's some stuff for ya.
Suicidal Gunshot Wounds to the Head: A Retrospective Review of 406 Cases
Blumenthal, Ryan MBChB (Pret), MMed (Med Forens) Pret, FC For Path (SA), Dip For Med (SA)
AbstractA retrospective review of 406 suicidal gunshot wounds to the head, investigated at the Medico-Legal Laboratory of Pretoria, between 1997 and 2000 was performed. Fifty-seven percent of fatal suicidal firearm injury to the head occurred in the 21- to 40-year age range in both male and female victims. Eighty-two percent of all these victims of suicidal firearm fatalities to the head were male. Of the 406 cases, 63% were white, 31% were black, and 6% were of mixed ethnic and/or Asian decent. There was a slight increase in incidence around spring and autumn. Handguns were used in the majority of cases with shoulder weapons being used in 18 of the 406 cases. Ninety-two percent of the suicidal gunshot wounds to the head occurred indoors. A positive blood alcohol concentration was seen in 40% of cases. Of those examined, 81% were contact gunshot wounds. The trajectory was upward in 51% of cases and horizontal in 24% of cases. The right temple was the most common entrance gunshot wound site. Findings are in keeping with previously published literature.
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Lots of stuff in there for you Ralphie but I thought you'd particularly like that upward and horizontal trajectory information because it puts Robin Bain's suicide in a 'healthy' 75% parameter. It kind of makes that nonsense about him praying when he got shot look ridiculous doesn't it Ralphie? If you read up on these things suicidees usually open their clothes for body shots rather than shooting through their clothes and the same goes for hats and beanies and we know old daddy lifted his beanie don't we Ralphie?
Forensic Science International
Volume 147, Supplement , Pages S37-S40, 17 January 2005
.Gunshot fatalities: suicide, homicide or accident?
A series of 48 cases
L. Desinan
AffiliationsCorresponding author. Fax: +39 0432 504649.
, G.M. Mazzolo
published online 02 November 2004.
Abstract Full Text PDFReferences .Abstract
Cases at study comprise 48 gunshot fatalities (33 suicides—29 males and 4 females; 12 homicides—8 males and 4 females; 3 uncertain cases—3 males), examined from 1992 to 2002. The age range of suicides is 22–96 years, mean 58.8 years. In 16 cases the age was upper 65. Scene of death was at home in 27 cases (of which 6 on bed), in a car in 2 cases and in an open place in 4 cases. Uncertain cases happened during hunting. The implements used in suicides were shotgun in 14 cases, rifles in 7, handguns in 11 and a humane veterinary killer in 1. In suicides single entrance wounds were found, apart 1 case with two entrance wounds. A script manifesting suicidal intent was present in 6 cases. Homicides showed both single and multiple entrance wounds: in the cases of multiple entrance wounds, no sign of contact/near contact injuries were seen. In 4 cases, bodies were hidden.
Keywords: Gunshot wounds, Homicide, Suicide, Accidental death
Among other things is the average age of those that commit suicide Ralph, and old Robin fell right within that group as well.
Influence of ballistic and autopsy parameters on the manner of death in case of long firearms fatalities
Geoffroy Lorin de la Grandmaison
AffiliationsDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, AP-HP, 104 Boulevard Raymond Poincaré, 92380 Garches, FranceCorresponding author. Tel.: +33 1 47 10 76 84; fax: +33 1 47 10 76 83.
, Christophe Fermanian
, Michel Durigon
AffiliationsDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, AP-HP, 104 Boulevard Raymond Poincaré, 92380 Garches, France
Received 28 March 2007; received in revised form 12 October 2007; accepted 4 January 2008. published online 18 February 2008.
Abstract Full Text PDFImages References .Abstract
A retrospective study was carried out on 132 fatalities due to gunshot wounds secondary to long firearms. One group of suicide (n=72) and one group of homicide (n=60) were statistically compared regarding age and sex of the victim, number of shots, range of fire, direction of the projectile(s), anatomical distribution of entrance sites, weapon and ammunition types and the nature of eventual associated traumatic lesions. The frequency of suicide was higher when the victim's age increased. Females constituted about 43% of the homicide victims and about 8% of the suicide victims. 51.5% of the homicide victims and about 10% of the suicide victims had sustained more than one gunshot wound. Close range was respectively found in 53.5% of the homicide cases and in all suicide cases. Most of the suicide cases (85% of the cases) showed typical entrance sites. Entrance sites in the limbs and lateral or posterior wall of the chest were only encountered in homicide cases. Associated traumatic lesions were found in about 23% of the homicide cases and in 18% of the suicide cases. In case of suicidal gunshots to the left chest, both upwards and downwards directions, and also both right-to-left and left-to-right directions can occur. From 22 suicide cases showing entrance wound in the mouth, a downwards direction was found in only one. This study underlines the importance but also the limits of the autopsy findings (including direction of the projectile(s) related to the entrance site) for giving an indication of the manner of death (homicide vs. suicide).
Keywords: Firearms, Long guns, Suicide, Homicide
Lot to read there Ralphie but it says that all the close range shots- just like Robins, were suicide and I guess you could expect that because people don't sit passively when they're being murdered, even if they were praying. They would tend to do a runner Ralphie, hit the toe, duck, dive scream out, not be passive and lifting their beanie while a gunman crawled a long the floor to get an upward trajectory shot - to conveniently make the statistics right. A freaked out young man wouldn't do that would he Ralphie, because he wouldn't think of it or even know all these statistics from around the world.
Abstract
A total of 624 consecutive gunshot autopsies from the Institutes of Legal Medicine in Münster and Hamburg was investigated retrospectively. In a subsample of 284 suicides and 293 homicides (n=577), a large variety of features such as firearm, ammunition, number and site of entrance wounds, shooting distance and direction of the internal bullet path were recorded and binary logistic regression analysis performed in the case of bullet paths. Females constituted 26.3% of the homicide victims and 10.6% of the suicides. Short-barrelled firearms outnumbered long arms in homicides by 6:1 and in suicides by 2:1. More than 1 gunshot injury was found in 5.6% of the suicides (maximum 5 gunshots) and in 53.9% of the homicides (maximum 23 gunshots). The suicidal gunshots were fired from contact or near contact range in 89% while this was the case in only 7.5% of the homicides. The typical entrance wound sites in suicides were the temple (36%), mouth (20%), forehead (11%) and left chest (15%) but uncommon entrance wound sites such as the eye, ear, and back of the neck and head were also encountered. In suicidal gunshots to the right temple (n=107), only 6% of the bullet paths were directed downwards and only 4% were directed from back-to-front. In gunshots to the left chest (n=130), bullet paths running right-to-left or parallel occurred frequently in suicides (75%) and infrequently in homicide victims (19%). From 61 suicides who fired the gun inside their mouth, only 1 pointed the gun downwards. Consequently, some bullet path directions cannot be considered indicative of suicide: downwards and back-to-front in gunshots to the temple, left-to-right in gunshots to the left chest and downwards in mouth shots. The isolated autopsy findings can only be indicative of suicide or homicide but the combined analysis of several findings can be associated with a high probability.
Direction, site and the muzzle target distance of bullet in the head and neck at close range as an indication of suicide or homicide
A little bit more there Ralphie to help you deal with the close contact situation that the Crown, and you, tried to play down.
Tasana Suwanjuthaa
aInstitute of Forensic Medicine, Police Department, Bangkok, Thailand
Available online 22 March 2004.
Abstract
Direction, site and muzzle target distance can indicate suicide or homicide. This conclusion can be drawn from autopsies of 57 cases of suicide and 68 cases of homicide by handgun fired at close range to the head and neck together with going to the crimescene in some cases. This study was carried out in Bangkok during the period from January 1983 to January 1986. In order to determine whether it was suicide or homicide, the path of the bullet, the site, the muzzle target distance must be considered. The angle of the bullet would be either elevated (from below upward), horizontal or an angle of depression (from above downward). For suicide, the direction of the bullet should be at an angle of elevation in the majority of cases. The position of the handgun in relation to the head in suicide was most often in tight contact and near contact. For homicide, the direction of the bullet should be horizontal in most cases. The bullet was at close range in the majority of the cases. There are 8 common sites for suicide and homicide and 10 different sites in the case of homicide which are at neck, left cheek, left aural region, lip, left occipital area orbit, chin, left eyebrow, submental and nose.
Keywords: Pathology and biology; Gunshot wound; Manner of death
This paper was presented at The Second Indo-Pacific Congress on Legal Medicine and Forensic Science in Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1986.
I hope you're starting to get the picture now Ralph why David should never have been charged and that's even before getting all that pesky forensic evidence against Robin, the spatter on him, but it was the bloodied and bruised hands that was the real give away in the beginning before forensic reports were established. A man that is passively murdered doesn't have bloodied and battered hands, or no underwear, a full bladder, and forget to put the porridge on.
Suicidal Gunshot Wounds to the Head: A Retrospective Review of 406 Cases
Blumenthal, Ryan MBChB (Pret), MMed (Med Forens) Pret, FC For Path (SA), Dip For Med (SA)
AbstractA retrospective review of 406 suicidal gunshot wounds to the head, investigated at the Medico-Legal Laboratory of Pretoria, between 1997 and 2000 was performed. Fifty-seven percent of fatal suicidal firearm injury to the head occurred in the 21- to 40-year age range in both male and female victims. Eighty-two percent of all these victims of suicidal firearm fatalities to the head were male. Of the 406 cases, 63% were white, 31% were black, and 6% were of mixed ethnic and/or Asian decent. There was a slight increase in incidence around spring and autumn. Handguns were used in the majority of cases with shoulder weapons being used in 18 of the 406 cases. Ninety-two percent of the suicidal gunshot wounds to the head occurred indoors. A positive blood alcohol concentration was seen in 40% of cases. Of those examined, 81% were contact gunshot wounds. The trajectory was upward in 51% of cases and horizontal in 24% of cases. The right temple was the most common entrance gunshot wound site. Findings are in keeping with previously published literature.
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Lots of stuff in there for you Ralphie but I thought you'd particularly like that upward and horizontal trajectory information because it puts Robin Bain's suicide in a 'healthy' 75% parameter. It kind of makes that nonsense about him praying when he got shot look ridiculous doesn't it Ralphie? If you read up on these things suicidees usually open their clothes for body shots rather than shooting through their clothes and the same goes for hats and beanies and we know old daddy lifted his beanie don't we Ralphie?
Forensic Science International
Volume 147, Supplement , Pages S37-S40, 17 January 2005
.Gunshot fatalities: suicide, homicide or accident?
A series of 48 cases
L. Desinan
AffiliationsCorresponding author. Fax: +39 0432 504649.
, G.M. Mazzolo
published online 02 November 2004.
Abstract Full Text PDFReferences .Abstract
Cases at study comprise 48 gunshot fatalities (33 suicides—29 males and 4 females; 12 homicides—8 males and 4 females; 3 uncertain cases—3 males), examined from 1992 to 2002. The age range of suicides is 22–96 years, mean 58.8 years. In 16 cases the age was upper 65. Scene of death was at home in 27 cases (of which 6 on bed), in a car in 2 cases and in an open place in 4 cases. Uncertain cases happened during hunting. The implements used in suicides were shotgun in 14 cases, rifles in 7, handguns in 11 and a humane veterinary killer in 1. In suicides single entrance wounds were found, apart 1 case with two entrance wounds. A script manifesting suicidal intent was present in 6 cases. Homicides showed both single and multiple entrance wounds: in the cases of multiple entrance wounds, no sign of contact/near contact injuries were seen. In 4 cases, bodies were hidden.
Keywords: Gunshot wounds, Homicide, Suicide, Accidental death
Among other things is the average age of those that commit suicide Ralph, and old Robin fell right within that group as well.
Influence of ballistic and autopsy parameters on the manner of death in case of long firearms fatalities
Geoffroy Lorin de la Grandmaison
AffiliationsDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, AP-HP, 104 Boulevard Raymond Poincaré, 92380 Garches, FranceCorresponding author. Tel.: +33 1 47 10 76 84; fax: +33 1 47 10 76 83.
, Christophe Fermanian
, Michel Durigon
AffiliationsDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, AP-HP, 104 Boulevard Raymond Poincaré, 92380 Garches, France
Received 28 March 2007; received in revised form 12 October 2007; accepted 4 January 2008. published online 18 February 2008.
Abstract Full Text PDFImages References .Abstract
A retrospective study was carried out on 132 fatalities due to gunshot wounds secondary to long firearms. One group of suicide (n=72) and one group of homicide (n=60) were statistically compared regarding age and sex of the victim, number of shots, range of fire, direction of the projectile(s), anatomical distribution of entrance sites, weapon and ammunition types and the nature of eventual associated traumatic lesions. The frequency of suicide was higher when the victim's age increased. Females constituted about 43% of the homicide victims and about 8% of the suicide victims. 51.5% of the homicide victims and about 10% of the suicide victims had sustained more than one gunshot wound. Close range was respectively found in 53.5% of the homicide cases and in all suicide cases. Most of the suicide cases (85% of the cases) showed typical entrance sites. Entrance sites in the limbs and lateral or posterior wall of the chest were only encountered in homicide cases. Associated traumatic lesions were found in about 23% of the homicide cases and in 18% of the suicide cases. In case of suicidal gunshots to the left chest, both upwards and downwards directions, and also both right-to-left and left-to-right directions can occur. From 22 suicide cases showing entrance wound in the mouth, a downwards direction was found in only one. This study underlines the importance but also the limits of the autopsy findings (including direction of the projectile(s) related to the entrance site) for giving an indication of the manner of death (homicide vs. suicide).
Keywords: Firearms, Long guns, Suicide, Homicide
Lot to read there Ralphie but it says that all the close range shots- just like Robins, were suicide and I guess you could expect that because people don't sit passively when they're being murdered, even if they were praying. They would tend to do a runner Ralphie, hit the toe, duck, dive scream out, not be passive and lifting their beanie while a gunman crawled a long the floor to get an upward trajectory shot - to conveniently make the statistics right. A freaked out young man wouldn't do that would he Ralphie, because he wouldn't think of it or even know all these statistics from around the world.
Abstract
A total of 624 consecutive gunshot autopsies from the Institutes of Legal Medicine in Münster and Hamburg was investigated retrospectively. In a subsample of 284 suicides and 293 homicides (n=577), a large variety of features such as firearm, ammunition, number and site of entrance wounds, shooting distance and direction of the internal bullet path were recorded and binary logistic regression analysis performed in the case of bullet paths. Females constituted 26.3% of the homicide victims and 10.6% of the suicides. Short-barrelled firearms outnumbered long arms in homicides by 6:1 and in suicides by 2:1. More than 1 gunshot injury was found in 5.6% of the suicides (maximum 5 gunshots) and in 53.9% of the homicides (maximum 23 gunshots). The suicidal gunshots were fired from contact or near contact range in 89% while this was the case in only 7.5% of the homicides. The typical entrance wound sites in suicides were the temple (36%), mouth (20%), forehead (11%) and left chest (15%) but uncommon entrance wound sites such as the eye, ear, and back of the neck and head were also encountered. In suicidal gunshots to the right temple (n=107), only 6% of the bullet paths were directed downwards and only 4% were directed from back-to-front. In gunshots to the left chest (n=130), bullet paths running right-to-left or parallel occurred frequently in suicides (75%) and infrequently in homicide victims (19%). From 61 suicides who fired the gun inside their mouth, only 1 pointed the gun downwards. Consequently, some bullet path directions cannot be considered indicative of suicide: downwards and back-to-front in gunshots to the temple, left-to-right in gunshots to the left chest and downwards in mouth shots. The isolated autopsy findings can only be indicative of suicide or homicide but the combined analysis of several findings can be associated with a high probability.
Direction, site and the muzzle target distance of bullet in the head and neck at close range as an indication of suicide or homicide
A little bit more there Ralphie to help you deal with the close contact situation that the Crown, and you, tried to play down.
Tasana Suwanjuthaa
aInstitute of Forensic Medicine, Police Department, Bangkok, Thailand
Available online 22 March 2004.
Abstract
Direction, site and muzzle target distance can indicate suicide or homicide. This conclusion can be drawn from autopsies of 57 cases of suicide and 68 cases of homicide by handgun fired at close range to the head and neck together with going to the crimescene in some cases. This study was carried out in Bangkok during the period from January 1983 to January 1986. In order to determine whether it was suicide or homicide, the path of the bullet, the site, the muzzle target distance must be considered. The angle of the bullet would be either elevated (from below upward), horizontal or an angle of depression (from above downward). For suicide, the direction of the bullet should be at an angle of elevation in the majority of cases. The position of the handgun in relation to the head in suicide was most often in tight contact and near contact. For homicide, the direction of the bullet should be horizontal in most cases. The bullet was at close range in the majority of the cases. There are 8 common sites for suicide and homicide and 10 different sites in the case of homicide which are at neck, left cheek, left aural region, lip, left occipital area orbit, chin, left eyebrow, submental and nose.
Keywords: Pathology and biology; Gunshot wound; Manner of death
This paper was presented at The Second Indo-Pacific Congress on Legal Medicine and Forensic Science in Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1986.
I hope you're starting to get the picture now Ralph why David should never have been charged and that's even before getting all that pesky forensic evidence against Robin, the spatter on him, but it was the bloodied and bruised hands that was the real give away in the beginning before forensic reports were established. A man that is passively murdered doesn't have bloodied and battered hands, or no underwear, a full bladder, and forget to put the porridge on.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Oh my goodness, Nina and osook on the point of some type of climax...
'Untruthful evidence' in Bain case - police
Another twist has emerged in one of New Zealand's most well-known murder cases.
ONE News can tonight reveal that police believe a defence witness in the David Bain retrial gave "untruthful evidence".
But police will not be taking action against photocopier salesman Daryl Young who gave evidence in the 2009 trial.
Bain was found not guilty of murdering his father, mother, two sisters and brother in a case that has captivated the country for more than 15 years and which has been the subject of huge controversy.
Now more controversy has been added with a letter released to ONE News about Young's evidence.
Young was a late witness in Bain's defence and told of his dealings with David's father, Robin Bain.
In court Young said: "I smelled alcohol and that's why I thought he wasn't at school".
Last year, documentary maker Bryan Bruce challenged the testimony, going as far as to ask police to investigate Young's entire evidence.
The reply came in a letter 10 months later when Detective Senior Sergeant David Harvey said: "I have concluded that untruthful evidence was given by Young. The investigation was referred for legal advice as to whether there was sufficient evidence to support a prosecution for perjury. It was determined that no criminal charges would follow."
However, Young's lawyers have told ONE News that the letter "contains a completely gratuitous and totally unfounded allegation relating to Mr Young".
They say "not only is the allegation completely unfounded, but it's contrary to the Crown's own evidence."
David Bain's defence also rejects the police findings, calling them unadulterated rubbish.
But both Bryan Bruce and Robin Bain's brother are questioning why no perjury charges are pending. Neither police nor Crown lawyers would appear on camera for the story, and police will not elaborate on why they are not prosecuting.
They said the investigation remains open should any further evidence come to light.
However that does not satisfy Young, whose lawyers have told ONE News they have made a complaint about the police conclusions to the Police Commissioner and the Independent Police Conduct Authority.
Quote
nina_s (95 ) 6:41 pm, Mon 30 May #32239
Suddenly we have a vague description of 'untruthful evidence,' from which 'no criminal charges will follow,' Bryan Bruce and Robin Bains' brother are questioning (presumably each other) as to 'why no perjury charges are pending.' Though of course 'police will not elaborate on why they are not prosecuting' despite the fact that the investigation 'remains open should any further evidence come to light.'
But of course the disclaimer is at the outset 'police believe a defence witness in the David Bain retrial gave untruthful evidence' doesn't reveal why the police 'believe' something they can't prove. That was evidenced in the Bain prosecution so is nothing new, the police believing something they can't prove.
There are deliberate and clumsy signs here of propaganda and persecution. Are the public suddenly to believe that complaints to the Police are generally expected to be upheld but not prosecuted, or that the Police believe something of which they do not have proof able to be tested by the Courts? I wonder why Bryan Bruce would receive such a letter which compromises the integrity of the Police generally by making a claim Police have not been able to prove. A letter which he 'releases' to news media in an exercise that without proof promotes his apparent credibility using an acknowledgement that there is no proof and all the while stretching the public's imagination that any complainant to the Police will receive a 'report' 10 months later that they (the Police) believe something they can't prove? This Police Officer is out of line, as is the letter in it's 'personal' tone that implies Brown is right not withstanding that there is no sustainable evidence.
The NZ public deserve more than this, to be so lightly regarded in their intelligence of believing something which isn't proven, or indeed could never be brought to Court because the passage of non-existence evidence has now been 'sold' to the public. Also tactically, how distant from explaining how the father had blood and bruises on his hands of which there is real proof and not proof of evidence yet 'come to life.' Vivian Harrison, Arie Smith, Aaron Farmer also 'enjoyed' the belief of those that lay at their doors claims that couldn't be proved, leaving them besieged by claims that don't sustain any credible inquiry.
So for David Bain, Vivian, Arie and Aaron, and now added to the list Daryl Young - who like Vivian was 'convicted' of nothing more than rumour to protect a failed prosecution, a thought now for the same sword which sought to strike them down, not with truth but with lies - also a time for NZers to expect more and the sword to fall back upon those that 'believe' without proof, but make their allegations anyway.
Another twist has emerged in one of New Zealand's most well-known murder cases.
ONE News can tonight reveal that police believe a defence witness in the David Bain retrial gave "untruthful evidence".
But police will not be taking action against photocopier salesman Daryl Young who gave evidence in the 2009 trial.
Bain was found not guilty of murdering his father, mother, two sisters and brother in a case that has captivated the country for more than 15 years and which has been the subject of huge controversy.
Now more controversy has been added with a letter released to ONE News about Young's evidence.
Young was a late witness in Bain's defence and told of his dealings with David's father, Robin Bain.
In court Young said: "I smelled alcohol and that's why I thought he wasn't at school".
Last year, documentary maker Bryan Bruce challenged the testimony, going as far as to ask police to investigate Young's entire evidence.
The reply came in a letter 10 months later when Detective Senior Sergeant David Harvey said: "I have concluded that untruthful evidence was given by Young. The investigation was referred for legal advice as to whether there was sufficient evidence to support a prosecution for perjury. It was determined that no criminal charges would follow."
However, Young's lawyers have told ONE News that the letter "contains a completely gratuitous and totally unfounded allegation relating to Mr Young".
They say "not only is the allegation completely unfounded, but it's contrary to the Crown's own evidence."
David Bain's defence also rejects the police findings, calling them unadulterated rubbish.
But both Bryan Bruce and Robin Bain's brother are questioning why no perjury charges are pending. Neither police nor Crown lawyers would appear on camera for the story, and police will not elaborate on why they are not prosecuting.
They said the investigation remains open should any further evidence come to light.
However that does not satisfy Young, whose lawyers have told ONE News they have made a complaint about the police conclusions to the Police Commissioner and the Independent Police Conduct Authority.
Quote
nina_s (95 ) 6:41 pm, Mon 30 May #32239
Suddenly we have a vague description of 'untruthful evidence,' from which 'no criminal charges will follow,' Bryan Bruce and Robin Bains' brother are questioning (presumably each other) as to 'why no perjury charges are pending.' Though of course 'police will not elaborate on why they are not prosecuting' despite the fact that the investigation 'remains open should any further evidence come to light.'
But of course the disclaimer is at the outset 'police believe a defence witness in the David Bain retrial gave untruthful evidence' doesn't reveal why the police 'believe' something they can't prove. That was evidenced in the Bain prosecution so is nothing new, the police believing something they can't prove.
There are deliberate and clumsy signs here of propaganda and persecution. Are the public suddenly to believe that complaints to the Police are generally expected to be upheld but not prosecuted, or that the Police believe something of which they do not have proof able to be tested by the Courts? I wonder why Bryan Bruce would receive such a letter which compromises the integrity of the Police generally by making a claim Police have not been able to prove. A letter which he 'releases' to news media in an exercise that without proof promotes his apparent credibility using an acknowledgement that there is no proof and all the while stretching the public's imagination that any complainant to the Police will receive a 'report' 10 months later that they (the Police) believe something they can't prove? This Police Officer is out of line, as is the letter in it's 'personal' tone that implies Brown is right not withstanding that there is no sustainable evidence.
The NZ public deserve more than this, to be so lightly regarded in their intelligence of believing something which isn't proven, or indeed could never be brought to Court because the passage of non-existence evidence has now been 'sold' to the public. Also tactically, how distant from explaining how the father had blood and bruises on his hands of which there is real proof and not proof of evidence yet 'come to life.' Vivian Harrison, Arie Smith, Aaron Farmer also 'enjoyed' the belief of those that lay at their doors claims that couldn't be proved, leaving them besieged by claims that don't sustain any credible inquiry.
So for David Bain, Vivian, Arie and Aaron, and now added to the list Daryl Young - who like Vivian was 'convicted' of nothing more than rumour to protect a failed prosecution, a thought now for the same sword which sought to strike them down, not with truth but with lies - also a time for NZers to expect more and the sword to fall back upon those that 'believe' without proof, but make their allegations anyway.
Ralph Taylor - more of what you hate to hear.....
Well Ralph, you didn't want to know that in less than 9% of suicides by long arms are fingerprints found on the rifle. That was evidence at the Trial and also supplied by parapenter (from memory) some time after the trial. There also happens to a peer-reviewed European study that puts the figure at less than 7% but rather than research that yourself you choose to badger others for their sources while (such as was the case with the blood in the barrel of the rifle Robin Bain shot himself with) providing no evidence or proof of your own claims, absolutely none.
Well, here's something else you don't want to know, but which you should have researched before persecuting David Bain with your lies, from Department of Forensic Medicine, Unirversity of Dundee, Lecture notes copyrighted by Derrick J Pounder in 1993 - before the Bain murders/suicide!
Under main heading: Ballistics
and sub heading: Bullet individual characteristics:
at end of section and para....
'Fingerprints are rarely recovered from firearms but may be obtained from cartridge cases.'
And additionally under the final heading: Gunshot Suicide...
'Suicide handgun wounds occur primarily to the head (80%), the chest (15%) and abdomen (<5%) being less common. Within the head the common sites, in decreasing order of frequency, are temple, mouth, under surface of chin and forehead. An unusual location raises a presumption of homicide.
Suicidal shotgun wounds show the same site preference as handguns. Rifle wounds show a distribution of head 50%, chest 35%, abdomen 15%.'
You might like to point out the later quotes to your fat friend osook who has claimed that Robin, if suiciding would have preferred to shoot himself in the mouth, much like you and osook have shot yourselves in the foot numerous times.
These are things you should have been able to understand if not research before you got on your persecution bandwagon Taylor. These are the type of statistics, that added to the tell-tale forensic evidence against Robin Bain, such as no splatter shielding across the lounge floor or curtain, the blood in the rifle, the spatter on Robin's hands, the spatter on his shoes occluded from being from his own wound, the only person to die that morning with an upward trajectory shot and the only person with battered and bloodied hands, a full bladder and no underwear - all showing why David Bain should never have been charged and most certainly not before the forensics evidence was assessed, rather than (as in some cases) thrown away.
Anyway Taylor I look forward to your proof, and the reason why you've badgered others, of peer reviewed material that denies that fingerprints on suicide weapons are 'rare' or that there are findings greater than 7-9% of fingerprints on suicide firearms. If you're not just a lying hate-messenger you'll have all that at your fingertips won't you Ralphie?
Well, here's something else you don't want to know, but which you should have researched before persecuting David Bain with your lies, from Department of Forensic Medicine, Unirversity of Dundee, Lecture notes copyrighted by Derrick J Pounder in 1993 - before the Bain murders/suicide!
Under main heading: Ballistics
and sub heading: Bullet individual characteristics:
at end of section and para....
'Fingerprints are rarely recovered from firearms but may be obtained from cartridge cases.'
And additionally under the final heading: Gunshot Suicide...
'Suicide handgun wounds occur primarily to the head (80%), the chest (15%) and abdomen (<5%) being less common. Within the head the common sites, in decreasing order of frequency, are temple, mouth, under surface of chin and forehead. An unusual location raises a presumption of homicide.
Suicidal shotgun wounds show the same site preference as handguns. Rifle wounds show a distribution of head 50%, chest 35%, abdomen 15%.'
You might like to point out the later quotes to your fat friend osook who has claimed that Robin, if suiciding would have preferred to shoot himself in the mouth, much like you and osook have shot yourselves in the foot numerous times.
These are things you should have been able to understand if not research before you got on your persecution bandwagon Taylor. These are the type of statistics, that added to the tell-tale forensic evidence against Robin Bain, such as no splatter shielding across the lounge floor or curtain, the blood in the rifle, the spatter on Robin's hands, the spatter on his shoes occluded from being from his own wound, the only person to die that morning with an upward trajectory shot and the only person with battered and bloodied hands, a full bladder and no underwear - all showing why David Bain should never have been charged and most certainly not before the forensics evidence was assessed, rather than (as in some cases) thrown away.
Anyway Taylor I look forward to your proof, and the reason why you've badgered others, of peer reviewed material that denies that fingerprints on suicide weapons are 'rare' or that there are findings greater than 7-9% of fingerprints on suicide firearms. If you're not just a lying hate-messenger you'll have all that at your fingertips won't you Ralphie?
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Kent Parker, kenty-baby have a big sook-up.
Defamation case against Justice for Robin Bain Group and counterspinAs has been widely publicized, Joe Karam has sued members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group (JFRB) and counterspin for comments made on the Facebook page, this site and on Trade Me message boards. All of the statements under investigation except about a dozen or so have been removed from publication. Members of JFRB and counterspin are defending these claims on the basis of qualified privilege, truth and honest opinion. All the statements made by members of the group refer to Joe Karam's activities in respect to the David Bain case, including
1.The manner in which he has written about and promoted the case
2.The extent to which he used taxpayer money personally in the form of legal aid to further the cause
3.The manner in which the case affects his economic activities
4.The manner in which he has stifled opposition by threatening and serving defamation suits
5.The behaviour of people who support his cause
6.The manner in which he has pursued the case for so long and in such a determined manner
Members of JFRB and counterspin contend that this is not a genuine grievance but part of a strategy to prevent people from publicly expressing opposition to the arguments that Joe Karam has promoted. A decade ago when Karam was being sued by the Police for alleging that certain policemen committed perjury he was the small man up against the establishment. Now Karam is in the position of being the "establishment" with respect to the Bain case and is suing the "small people" for having lively and relevant discussions on purpose built forums about the case. Karam enjoys criticizing other people but takes huge offence when being criticized himself. In law there is no "Do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" rule but in the real world of public opinion there is. Karam would be well advised to take heed of that particular ancient Christian proverb.
Blatant Hypocrisy
In response to the Bryan Bruce documentary The Case Against Robin Bain, Karam came out with the fighting words:
David Bain's chief supporter, Joe Karam, said claims made in promoting the documentary were "mischievous misrepresentations of the facts". "The programme itself perpetrates a fraud." (view)
and:
The documentary did not follow the normal broadcasting standards of balance and fairness, Mr Karam said.
"Huge claims were made solely for the purpose, I would say, of increasing ratings and getting people to watch it."(view)
The statements above would be sufficient material for a defamation case against Mr Karam. These are similar to statements that members of the Justice for Robin Bain group have been making about the activities of Karam - but in much less public media.
Add to that, Karam accused the police of perjury in the first trial and drummed the idea thoroughly into the public in his book David and Goliath and in his booklet Innocent. No case for perjury was even made against any police officers, let alone proven and the Police Complaints Authority rebutted Karam's claims on just about every point.
Kenty is still hurting, he wants some sympathy - a hug even. The poor chap feels humiliated, he's indignant because he reckons Joe Karam is naughtier than what he is. He's citing a claim that Karam accused the Police of perjury in order to justify his (Kent's) defamation. Though he forgets two officers (with the full weight of the Police association behind them) sued Joe and lost. And spitting the dummy about what Joe might have done, rather than what he (Kent) has done, he grizzles about the discredited TV documentary by Bryan Bruce and what Joe had to say about it, although it's clear to note that Bryan Bruce is silent on the subject and was criticised by BCA and fined.
Poor old Kenty is a blubbering cry baby, a big sook who thinks he's justified in his hate campaign, stalking and defamation by comparing his own awkward, foolhardy and driven by bravado, law-breaking by what he believes Joe Karam might have done. Get it in your head thicko, it's not about what Joe Karam might have done it's about you and your fiddler web-site sprouting off defamation and hate. You're not the complainant Kent, you're the defendant - that's why you get to stand in the dock and look like a moron. That's why you were in Court last week Kent, because you needed to be told it's not kindergarten anymore where you cried in the sandpit because the other kids said you looked like Anthony Perkins in Psycho and when you threw painted blocks at them and they told the teacher you blubbered, 'they called me names.'
Seriously Kent, did you ever consider comedy?
1.The manner in which he has written about and promoted the case
2.The extent to which he used taxpayer money personally in the form of legal aid to further the cause
3.The manner in which the case affects his economic activities
4.The manner in which he has stifled opposition by threatening and serving defamation suits
5.The behaviour of people who support his cause
6.The manner in which he has pursued the case for so long and in such a determined manner
Members of JFRB and counterspin contend that this is not a genuine grievance but part of a strategy to prevent people from publicly expressing opposition to the arguments that Joe Karam has promoted. A decade ago when Karam was being sued by the Police for alleging that certain policemen committed perjury he was the small man up against the establishment. Now Karam is in the position of being the "establishment" with respect to the Bain case and is suing the "small people" for having lively and relevant discussions on purpose built forums about the case. Karam enjoys criticizing other people but takes huge offence when being criticized himself. In law there is no "Do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" rule but in the real world of public opinion there is. Karam would be well advised to take heed of that particular ancient Christian proverb.
Blatant Hypocrisy
In response to the Bryan Bruce documentary The Case Against Robin Bain, Karam came out with the fighting words:
David Bain's chief supporter, Joe Karam, said claims made in promoting the documentary were "mischievous misrepresentations of the facts". "The programme itself perpetrates a fraud." (view)
and:
The documentary did not follow the normal broadcasting standards of balance and fairness, Mr Karam said.
"Huge claims were made solely for the purpose, I would say, of increasing ratings and getting people to watch it."(view)
The statements above would be sufficient material for a defamation case against Mr Karam. These are similar to statements that members of the Justice for Robin Bain group have been making about the activities of Karam - but in much less public media.
Add to that, Karam accused the police of perjury in the first trial and drummed the idea thoroughly into the public in his book David and Goliath and in his booklet Innocent. No case for perjury was even made against any police officers, let alone proven and the Police Complaints Authority rebutted Karam's claims on just about every point.
Kenty is still hurting, he wants some sympathy - a hug even. The poor chap feels humiliated, he's indignant because he reckons Joe Karam is naughtier than what he is. He's citing a claim that Karam accused the Police of perjury in order to justify his (Kent's) defamation. Though he forgets two officers (with the full weight of the Police association behind them) sued Joe and lost. And spitting the dummy about what Joe might have done, rather than what he (Kent) has done, he grizzles about the discredited TV documentary by Bryan Bruce and what Joe had to say about it, although it's clear to note that Bryan Bruce is silent on the subject and was criticised by BCA and fined.
Poor old Kenty is a blubbering cry baby, a big sook who thinks he's justified in his hate campaign, stalking and defamation by comparing his own awkward, foolhardy and driven by bravado, law-breaking by what he believes Joe Karam might have done. Get it in your head thicko, it's not about what Joe Karam might have done it's about you and your fiddler web-site sprouting off defamation and hate. You're not the complainant Kent, you're the defendant - that's why you get to stand in the dock and look like a moron. That's why you were in Court last week Kent, because you needed to be told it's not kindergarten anymore where you cried in the sandpit because the other kids said you looked like Anthony Perkins in Psycho and when you threw painted blocks at them and they told the teacher you blubbered, 'they called me names.'
Seriously Kent, did you ever consider comedy?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Kent Parker is not as stupid as he looks, nearly ... but not quite..
As has been widely publicized, Joe Karam has sued members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group (JFRB) and counterspin for comments made on the Facebook page, this site and on Trade Me message boards. All of the statements under investigation except about a dozen or so have been removed from publication. Members of JFRB and counterspin are defending these claims on the basis of qualified privilege, truth and honest opinion. All the statements made by members of the group refer to Joe Karam's activities in respect to the David Bain case, including
1.The manner in which he has written about and promoted the case
2.The extent to which he used taxpayer money personally in the form of legal aid to further the cause
3.The manner in which the case affects his economic activities
4.The manner in which he has stifled opposition by threatening and serving defamation suits
Members of JFRB and counterspin contend that this is not a genuine grievance but part of a strategy to prevent people from publicly expressing opposition to the arguments that Joe Karam has promoted. A decade ago when Karam was being sued by the Police for alleging that certain policemen committed perjury he was the small man up against the establishment. Now Karam is in the position of being the "establishment" with respect to the Bain case and is suing the "small people" for having lively and relevant discussions on purpose built forums about the case. Karam enjoys criticizing other people but takes huge offence when being criticized himself. In law there is no "Do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" rule but in the real world of public opinion there is. Karam would be well advised to take heed of that particular ancient Christian proverb.
If the above is the sort of nonsense that Parker thinks is a defence no wonder it is challenged and sought to be struck out. The first thing Parker should note in his pea-sized brain is that he is the owner and operator of a hate-site which after much pressure was finally shut down. Parker and his merry band of idiots weren't seeking to do anything other than spread hate against Bain and Karam, to the point were they deliberately published lies to bring both men into disrepute - it went so far that a false 'confession' was written by a site administrator and referenced as breakthrough new evidence. Then of course we've had other hate-site personnel claiming that David was never strip searched, had scratches on his chest on the morning of the murders, that his fingerprints were in blood on the rifle and that Robin Bain's brain matter wasn't found sucked into the rifle with which he shot himself.
None of this of course relates to the financial situation of Mr Karam and if there were any question about that it would be for the authorities not some frothing at the mouth idiots or now seek to justify their defamation on matters for which they had no proof and were only ever mentioned by them in the most offensive and defamatory way without proof. Needless to say the system is transparent and any information the idiot Parker was entitled to he could have asked through the relevant legislation, shouting and lieing his rotten head of as he gloated in his own importance is why he is being sued. That he actively encouraged other to defame Karam and other by providing a message board for them to do is the reason his sorry arse is in the High Court. The same goes for the idiot Purkiss who along with Parker was stupid enough to be reported as threatening and harassing Karam and Bain in a public newspaper, and who also are recorded as launching defamatory attacks on TM and elsewhere.
'The manner of which he has stifled opposition' by threatening or issuing law suits says Parker. Does the idiot the think he has some kind of immunity from making and encouraging public defamation? If he does he's on a sharp learning curve now. As I've told the fool before he should pull his head and seek to settle on what ever terms he can get. Not only is that his best course but it might offer him some mitigation for his encouragement of jury and witness stalking, his failure to act when plans were made on his boards to stalk and threaten members of the public, to bring false complaints against others to the authorities. Face it Kent, you crapped in your own pants.
Truth and qualified opinion, says Kent. However, he will be able to show that Karam fabricated evidence and got witnesses to say things is beyond comprehension. Kent tried such things himself and got caught out, because Kent was caught out that somehow does gather into an unfounded allegation against others. Qualified opinion, and in what way is Kent Parker qualified, his sites have shown how little they know about the Bain case and how willing they to deny what doesn't suit them and labour mistruths in the hope they will become reality, maybe in his sad world but no where else on this planet.
But as I've written before the privilege argument may have merit. Parker could argue that he is an idiot (plenty of evidence to that fact) and that his members are also idiots and consequently there position is privileged in some way in that normal members of society ought not under normal circumstances listen or take seriously the rantings of filthy hate-siters. It would be worth a try for him, nothing else has worked and I don't think anyone could seriously argue that he isn't an idiot.
Of course the environment from which the defamatory statements were made is important, also the activities illegal and otherwise that also arose from that environment is important for a Jury to ascertain the credibility and honesty of the participants. But not least is the way the 'opinions' were passed whether they were nonfactual or not - in all those areas Parker and Purkiss fail.
1.The manner in which he has written about and promoted the case
2.The extent to which he used taxpayer money personally in the form of legal aid to further the cause
3.The manner in which the case affects his economic activities
4.The manner in which he has stifled opposition by threatening and serving defamation suits
Members of JFRB and counterspin contend that this is not a genuine grievance but part of a strategy to prevent people from publicly expressing opposition to the arguments that Joe Karam has promoted. A decade ago when Karam was being sued by the Police for alleging that certain policemen committed perjury he was the small man up against the establishment. Now Karam is in the position of being the "establishment" with respect to the Bain case and is suing the "small people" for having lively and relevant discussions on purpose built forums about the case. Karam enjoys criticizing other people but takes huge offence when being criticized himself. In law there is no "Do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" rule but in the real world of public opinion there is. Karam would be well advised to take heed of that particular ancient Christian proverb.
If the above is the sort of nonsense that Parker thinks is a defence no wonder it is challenged and sought to be struck out. The first thing Parker should note in his pea-sized brain is that he is the owner and operator of a hate-site which after much pressure was finally shut down. Parker and his merry band of idiots weren't seeking to do anything other than spread hate against Bain and Karam, to the point were they deliberately published lies to bring both men into disrepute - it went so far that a false 'confession' was written by a site administrator and referenced as breakthrough new evidence. Then of course we've had other hate-site personnel claiming that David was never strip searched, had scratches on his chest on the morning of the murders, that his fingerprints were in blood on the rifle and that Robin Bain's brain matter wasn't found sucked into the rifle with which he shot himself.
None of this of course relates to the financial situation of Mr Karam and if there were any question about that it would be for the authorities not some frothing at the mouth idiots or now seek to justify their defamation on matters for which they had no proof and were only ever mentioned by them in the most offensive and defamatory way without proof. Needless to say the system is transparent and any information the idiot Parker was entitled to he could have asked through the relevant legislation, shouting and lieing his rotten head of as he gloated in his own importance is why he is being sued. That he actively encouraged other to defame Karam and other by providing a message board for them to do is the reason his sorry arse is in the High Court. The same goes for the idiot Purkiss who along with Parker was stupid enough to be reported as threatening and harassing Karam and Bain in a public newspaper, and who also are recorded as launching defamatory attacks on TM and elsewhere.
'The manner of which he has stifled opposition' by threatening or issuing law suits says Parker. Does the idiot the think he has some kind of immunity from making and encouraging public defamation? If he does he's on a sharp learning curve now. As I've told the fool before he should pull his head and seek to settle on what ever terms he can get. Not only is that his best course but it might offer him some mitigation for his encouragement of jury and witness stalking, his failure to act when plans were made on his boards to stalk and threaten members of the public, to bring false complaints against others to the authorities. Face it Kent, you crapped in your own pants.
Truth and qualified opinion, says Kent. However, he will be able to show that Karam fabricated evidence and got witnesses to say things is beyond comprehension. Kent tried such things himself and got caught out, because Kent was caught out that somehow does gather into an unfounded allegation against others. Qualified opinion, and in what way is Kent Parker qualified, his sites have shown how little they know about the Bain case and how willing they to deny what doesn't suit them and labour mistruths in the hope they will become reality, maybe in his sad world but no where else on this planet.
But as I've written before the privilege argument may have merit. Parker could argue that he is an idiot (plenty of evidence to that fact) and that his members are also idiots and consequently there position is privileged in some way in that normal members of society ought not under normal circumstances listen or take seriously the rantings of filthy hate-siters. It would be worth a try for him, nothing else has worked and I don't think anyone could seriously argue that he isn't an idiot.
Of course the environment from which the defamatory statements were made is important, also the activities illegal and otherwise that also arose from that environment is important for a Jury to ascertain the credibility and honesty of the participants. But not least is the way the 'opinions' were passed whether they were nonfactual or not - in all those areas Parker and Purkiss fail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)