I know the police have stated that they wanted to preserve the scene, thus being the reason for keeping The Crown Pathologist, Dempster, waiting outside Every Street for several hours. However, this man was the foremost expert to visit the scene that day, it was critical that it should be him examining the bodies at the first opportunity. To suggest he was somehow inept at not containing samples or collecting evidence stretches credibility. Particularly, when we have seen (on video) the general abandon with which the officers on the scene gathered critical evidence - the gathering off the floor off clothing and such like to be carted away in a blanket. I think we all understand that blood for example (or any other dna) would be transferred from one item to another in this way. Just as we all understand that core temperatures of the bodies were left unattended through many hours when the possibility of determining the times of death were lost.
During this period when Dempster was left outside the house the police experimented with tomato sauce spray to assist in determining features of the deaths, something which is as bizarre as it sounds. Could some of the police have had misgivings about surrendering the scene to the expert too soon? I recall a Detective giving evidence that he asked senior staff about the Gunshot Residue Tests early in the morning. Obviously this man had no inhibitions about what correct procedure was. Unfortunately compounding the 'mistakes' made in these first few hours of the investigations is anectodal evidence of some of the inquiry staff being aware of Laniet's role in prostitution, and even the exploitation of some officers of this situation Laniet have become involved in.
We also know that an electronic diary that Laniet owned eventually disappeared while in police hands, as also we know that the record of calls to and from her mobile phone were never recovered. Certainly within days police were made aware of allegations that Laniet had been the subject of abuse from her father, these claims however were not investigated because as one officer put it 'they had a murder case to solve.' A fairly novel statement when even armchair critics understand that motive can, and often does, lead to the murderer.
Without touching on the suggestions of incest in any great detail here, I'll mention two points that the hate-sites labour. Firstly, a victim of incest may not necessarily have an ongoing 'relationship' with their abuser. The fact that Laniet met her father at the school is neither here nor there in terms of whether any abuse had taken place. She was of course older, 'use' to the situation if it were true, and may have some control over Robin about her favours for him.
Secondly, while Laniet is rounded upon at length by Robin defenders and anything she is alleged to have said to a vast range of people who gave evidence to that effect at the trial - assumes that Laniet was simply providing an alibi for David in preparation for her own death. That, like many things in the Bain case, doesn't wash.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Something for the children
Deputy Commissioner Of Police
Rob Pope
Dear Sir,
The following is a defamatory post made about you on the message boards of Trade Me. Any inquiries would likely show that the poster linz4me is gentleman who has some difficulties, which may in part excuse him for his apparent condition in often naming well known figures as being corrupt and in Contempt of Court. However, my concern is that this poster has made defamatory comment about yourself and others at will on the TM boards, and that TM allow it to continue.
You may know that they operate a post first policy, relying on other board users to moderate the boards or indeed contact them with a complaint. I complained about the following post yesterday and it remains. One of the obvious disadvantages of a 'post first' policy is that the material enters the cybermedia and can be absorbed into files or other publications very quickly, so that even when an 'offending' post is removed there is no specific way of knowing the extent of the damage it may have caused.
I will be up front and acknowledge that I am active in pressuring Trade Me for a fairer system whereby they don't live post but moderate first, and also where they don't rely on members of their boards or of the public to complain. I feel such a complaint policy assumes that anyone such as yourself is obligated to monitor message boards of which you may have no interest but on which you must keep an eye in case, as in the following and previous posts, you are defamed. I think any reasonable person would be offended by the post, the delay in it's removal, none of which - withstands your role in the Police.
I have suggested to Trade Me that this gentleman linz4me be prevented from posting because of his inability to prevent himself straying into defamatory statements.
Yours faithfully
etc.
url http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=312&topic=7
ro42 wrote:
That's daft, Linz. Everyone's entitled to state their opinion, within the law, and within the TM rules.
I'm afraid I will have to agree to disagree with you, there has been a shift in what is acceptable to the detriment of those who happen to believe Robin Bain is a victim not a monster. There has been talk of screen shots taken to prove a point there has been talk of misconduct by those of one opinion but if some one retaliates there is the threats again.
When I first started posting on R. v Watson I was subjected to some pretty nasty and intemperate comments and I was forceful in my opinion of both Pope and Davison calling both liars and corrupt many times which invoked some very strong replies from some members who were police officers.
But even at is worst it was play school compared to to abuse some have suffered and the abusers are in most part back under different names.
I have defended Robin Bain simply because he has no one to speak for him and deceased or not he is entitled to a defence, I find it abhorrent that because he is deceased it is a licence to vilify him on little or no evidence. It is repugnant that anyone finds it totally acceptable to do this and when asked to produce evidence to support their position refuse to do so.
I try to speak for those who have no voice, no defender, no rights why even pigs in sow crates have more rights than a deceased person.
It is so sad that we have sunk to the level of blaming the dead for their own death.
Quote
linz4me (273 ) 5:02 pm, Mon 2 Aug #15592
I think I might have solved one of Kent's problems. I'm sure he'll be so pleased. Taken from the above it has become plain to me that linz4me is not advising kenty boy on how to defend charges of defamation but rather advising Kenty how defamation should be conducted. Jolly, jolly good.
We may have also discovered a deeper wisdom thanks to linz(I've got everything in the world wrong with me and nobody, loves me)forme: pigs in sow crates have more rights than a deceased person. I imagine having abused the Judge and all the lawyers first that linz4me will open his final address to the jury with that pearler, leaving all present, to wonder whether it had been an animal rights trial of some discription or just a circus with Kent and linzo-binzo vying for the clown's role. It'll be such fun, I can hardly wait.
Rob Pope
Dear Sir,
The following is a defamatory post made about you on the message boards of Trade Me. Any inquiries would likely show that the poster linz4me is gentleman who has some difficulties, which may in part excuse him for his apparent condition in often naming well known figures as being corrupt and in Contempt of Court. However, my concern is that this poster has made defamatory comment about yourself and others at will on the TM boards, and that TM allow it to continue.
You may know that they operate a post first policy, relying on other board users to moderate the boards or indeed contact them with a complaint. I complained about the following post yesterday and it remains. One of the obvious disadvantages of a 'post first' policy is that the material enters the cybermedia and can be absorbed into files or other publications very quickly, so that even when an 'offending' post is removed there is no specific way of knowing the extent of the damage it may have caused.
I will be up front and acknowledge that I am active in pressuring Trade Me for a fairer system whereby they don't live post but moderate first, and also where they don't rely on members of their boards or of the public to complain. I feel such a complaint policy assumes that anyone such as yourself is obligated to monitor message boards of which you may have no interest but on which you must keep an eye in case, as in the following and previous posts, you are defamed. I think any reasonable person would be offended by the post, the delay in it's removal, none of which - withstands your role in the Police.
I have suggested to Trade Me that this gentleman linz4me be prevented from posting because of his inability to prevent himself straying into defamatory statements.
Yours faithfully
etc.
url http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=312&topic=7
ro42 wrote:
That's daft, Linz. Everyone's entitled to state their opinion, within the law, and within the TM rules.
I'm afraid I will have to agree to disagree with you, there has been a shift in what is acceptable to the detriment of those who happen to believe Robin Bain is a victim not a monster. There has been talk of screen shots taken to prove a point there has been talk of misconduct by those of one opinion but if some one retaliates there is the threats again.
When I first started posting on R. v Watson I was subjected to some pretty nasty and intemperate comments and I was forceful in my opinion of both Pope and Davison calling both liars and corrupt many times which invoked some very strong replies from some members who were police officers.
But even at is worst it was play school compared to to abuse some have suffered and the abusers are in most part back under different names.
I have defended Robin Bain simply because he has no one to speak for him and deceased or not he is entitled to a defence, I find it abhorrent that because he is deceased it is a licence to vilify him on little or no evidence. It is repugnant that anyone finds it totally acceptable to do this and when asked to produce evidence to support their position refuse to do so.
I try to speak for those who have no voice, no defender, no rights why even pigs in sow crates have more rights than a deceased person.
It is so sad that we have sunk to the level of blaming the dead for their own death.
Quote
linz4me (273 ) 5:02 pm, Mon 2 Aug #15592
I think I might have solved one of Kent's problems. I'm sure he'll be so pleased. Taken from the above it has become plain to me that linz4me is not advising kenty boy on how to defend charges of defamation but rather advising Kenty how defamation should be conducted. Jolly, jolly good.
We may have also discovered a deeper wisdom thanks to linz(I've got everything in the world wrong with me and nobody, loves me)forme: pigs in sow crates have more rights than a deceased person. I imagine having abused the Judge and all the lawyers first that linz4me will open his final address to the jury with that pearler, leaving all present, to wonder whether it had been an animal rights trial of some discription or just a circus with Kent and linzo-binzo vying for the clown's role. It'll be such fun, I can hardly wait.
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.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Kent's a Genius.
It's official, thank goodness for that. sweet_ad has confirmed on TM that Kent is a genius. She could be right. He was smart enough not to attend the 'memorial' service that only sweet_ad turned up to along with a solitary reporter and 5,000 boxes of tissues. That's fairly brilliant of old kenty boy. But he's strugging on a few other fronts. For example being an expert on defamation until he got sued. Running a hate-site sucessfully for less than a year before being sued. Hosting a petition with forged signatures that he believes the Minister will accept. Being so bright that he continues to watch his 'followers,' yes followers because he's shaping up to be the messiah of half-wits, keeping up the defaming work to the point he's been resued and it's not even xmas. Putting that aside and relying instead on the insightful intellect of sweet_ad, who wants a husband (anybody will do even if she has to flatter them at length,)old kenty boy could be a genius afterall. I bet nina_concertina feels left out, sort of lonely.
I hope Kent's not feeling pressured about money. I've heard a defence might cost up to a million, and I know ret1 has promised another $10 after xmas. But old kukkybelle from TM has said money is not a problem. Not problem. No problem at all, she'll just have to find the cheque. For kent's sake I hope it's not like the autopsy report that she had read and was going to post on TM, the one that showed that Laniet had never been pregnant because we've been waiting 2 years for that. If she doesn't speed along Kent will be dragged kicking and screaming from the High Court yelling, 'don't you know who am? I'm old kenty boy the Messiah, and told you lot the cheque is in the mail.' Well, at least sweet_ad will hold a memorial service for him and no one will arrive, not even sweet_ad herself.
I hope Kent's not feeling pressured about money. I've heard a defence might cost up to a million, and I know ret1 has promised another $10 after xmas. But old kukkybelle from TM has said money is not a problem. Not problem. No problem at all, she'll just have to find the cheque. For kent's sake I hope it's not like the autopsy report that she had read and was going to post on TM, the one that showed that Laniet had never been pregnant because we've been waiting 2 years for that. If she doesn't speed along Kent will be dragged kicking and screaming from the High Court yelling, 'don't you know who am? I'm old kenty boy the Messiah, and told you lot the cheque is in the mail.' Well, at least sweet_ad will hold a memorial service for him and no one will arrive, not even sweet_ad herself.
Poetry for the Dead
Late last night a 'look at me' poster on TM, (no not nina_concertina but another rivalling for the spot) 'sweet_ad' posted poems for the dead Bains on TM no doubt in an emotional wrench. Sweet_ad, some may remember, is the person who politicised the recent anniversary of the Bain deaths by inviting the press and running advertisements for others to attend what for most would be a very personal, private situation. Alas, only sweet_ad and one reporter arrived. I'm sure sweet_ad may have mustered a few tears and been able to manage a 'woe is me' tearful look for the camera but to this point the picture, if there was one, hasn't been published.
But sweet_ad is a little more interesting than that. She is currently contesting with her sister as to who it was that actually knew the Bain family. Messy stuff suitable for a hate-site which is exactly where the comments were published. Not to be out done the sister 'wrote' a confession of sorts allegedly made by Laniet to one half of the sisters. The confession was smugly gathered and hidden in the inner sanctums of one of the sites for only the true nutters to see and drool over. There was no questions raised about its authenticity because it said exactly what the hate-sites wanted. No questions were asked about the tone of the confession or the extraction technique and language of the interviewer who at the time was a school girl. Of course it was never sent to the police, or if it was, there may have been some direction from the police suggesting the writer seek medical help.
Meanwhile, Kent tossing and turning about at night, wondering why he had changed from a white knight to something looking very similar to the lead protagonist in the psycho movie, had an idea to save his bacon. He published the 'confession' for public view. When I heard about it I wrote to him, explaining that publishing or republishing defamatory material shared equal liability for either publisher. I'm not sure whether kenty boy understood that given his current desperation and wilting bravado. This week from what I understand he gets an updated statement of claim included more citations against he and his erstwhile comrade in woe Vic.
Pathetic as it may be to watch, sweet_ad's behaviour shows the prevailing mindset of the hate-siters, all knowing and driven by grief at what is wrong in the world, being the only ones able to see and closing ranks against those that cannot, sharing together in their righteousness and silent on one anothers law-breaking. Does the cybermedia need this? My answer is no. I say these people feed off one another and from cues from the press or anything that can be misconstrued to support their hate campaigns.
I may post my most recent letter to Kent about publishing the 'confession' later, it bounced back, but clearly not before Kent had read or copied it. I know this because his pal supergoof let it slip on TM that I (nos) was stalking kent again. The 'first' time being the letters already published here.
But sweet_ad is a little more interesting than that. She is currently contesting with her sister as to who it was that actually knew the Bain family. Messy stuff suitable for a hate-site which is exactly where the comments were published. Not to be out done the sister 'wrote' a confession of sorts allegedly made by Laniet to one half of the sisters. The confession was smugly gathered and hidden in the inner sanctums of one of the sites for only the true nutters to see and drool over. There was no questions raised about its authenticity because it said exactly what the hate-sites wanted. No questions were asked about the tone of the confession or the extraction technique and language of the interviewer who at the time was a school girl. Of course it was never sent to the police, or if it was, there may have been some direction from the police suggesting the writer seek medical help.
Meanwhile, Kent tossing and turning about at night, wondering why he had changed from a white knight to something looking very similar to the lead protagonist in the psycho movie, had an idea to save his bacon. He published the 'confession' for public view. When I heard about it I wrote to him, explaining that publishing or republishing defamatory material shared equal liability for either publisher. I'm not sure whether kenty boy understood that given his current desperation and wilting bravado. This week from what I understand he gets an updated statement of claim included more citations against he and his erstwhile comrade in woe Vic.
Pathetic as it may be to watch, sweet_ad's behaviour shows the prevailing mindset of the hate-siters, all knowing and driven by grief at what is wrong in the world, being the only ones able to see and closing ranks against those that cannot, sharing together in their righteousness and silent on one anothers law-breaking. Does the cybermedia need this? My answer is no. I say these people feed off one another and from cues from the press or anything that can be misconstrued to support their hate campaigns.
I may post my most recent letter to Kent about publishing the 'confession' later, it bounced back, but clearly not before Kent had read or copied it. I know this because his pal supergoof let it slip on TM that I (nos) was stalking kent again. The 'first' time being the letters already published here.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Anonymous said.
Anonymous said...
Let's face it, the media is not going to sell papers by repeating the news David is innocent. They had to come up with a new angle and Robin Bain was their easiest option. No doubt, when people get sick of hearing about Robin, they'll start on Margaret.
Whilst the media has played a role in the current atmosphere regarding the Bain case, it is important to note the role of the internet, and in particular 'blogs', 'message boards' and other, relatively new mediums.
Peter Ellis, A. A. Thomas, David Dougherty and others, were convicted before the WWW or at least before it's popularity soared. The Bain case, is the first controversial mass murder since the internet became a common domestic feature.
The internet allows access to vast amounts of information, photos, and opinions etc, that would previously been available to a select few, appropriately qualified or intelligent individuals. Who would have had the skill to interpret and determine their relevancy.
Instead we have vast amounts of information being absorbed by pseudo experts ranging to complete idiots. The negative effects of this phenomenom are amply demonstrated in the Trademe message boards, where individuals can post a message, without the normal constraints of societal rules. What's more, when others don't agree with them, they are then able to use the internet as a tool to intimidate their opponents, and effect the cessation of balanced discussion.
It would be interesting to line these people up at a local bar and see what they had to say, I think it would be very little, if they bothered to turn up!
August 1, 2010 1:43 PM
To quote anonymous:
The internet allows access to vast amounts of information, photos, and opinions etc, that would previously been available to a select few, appropriately qualified or intelligent individuals. Who would have had the skill to interpret and determine their relevancy.
I'm all in favour of the information being available on the internet. It just appears that few rules were set at the outset, at least in NZ. The consequence has been anybody able to drive in cyber space, comfortably heading in the wrong direction and in full free flight. The cat is out of the bag, and to be fair we needed protocol and administration in place before the tap was turned on. In many ways viewing the effort to make the internet popular not much appears to have been done to deal with that popularity, or having thought out the possible ramifications, legal and otherwise. This has to be fault of legislators. The TM model is a dinosaur, eventually they'll give up or apply pre-publication checks on posts. The current model of letting the dogs out and chasing them later is extreme stupidity.
So it appears that a few hate-sites and the like are a by-product of having no active internet policing and time-delayed posting. I remain a bit of an optomist and believe that had rules been introduced and enforced, either by live moderation, or delayed moderation, the popularity of the internet wouldn't have been negatively effected as posters would just have accepted fairly strict rules as the norm. Unfortunately for now, the norm needs to be restrained and a fresh start made. We'd all benefit from that, even those who have for whatever reason believed that defaming and stalking were permissible. Part of that is reflected from the myopic view that the internet was like having a chat in the pub. I've seen that stated on the boards and I've heard talk that TM administrators have had some legal opinion to that view. Well, it's absolute nonsense, one press of the button can launch information into a million or more homes instantly, a chat in the pub does not in the least compare with that.
But to anonymous's first point which is probably right - the sale of papers being priority, shows that mainstream media has slipped to the thought that everyone can be treated as though they are idiots. I reject that idea, mediocre journalism is probably more dangerous than hate-sites.
Let's face it, the media is not going to sell papers by repeating the news David is innocent. They had to come up with a new angle and Robin Bain was their easiest option. No doubt, when people get sick of hearing about Robin, they'll start on Margaret.
Whilst the media has played a role in the current atmosphere regarding the Bain case, it is important to note the role of the internet, and in particular 'blogs', 'message boards' and other, relatively new mediums.
Peter Ellis, A. A. Thomas, David Dougherty and others, were convicted before the WWW or at least before it's popularity soared. The Bain case, is the first controversial mass murder since the internet became a common domestic feature.
The internet allows access to vast amounts of information, photos, and opinions etc, that would previously been available to a select few, appropriately qualified or intelligent individuals. Who would have had the skill to interpret and determine their relevancy.
Instead we have vast amounts of information being absorbed by pseudo experts ranging to complete idiots. The negative effects of this phenomenom are amply demonstrated in the Trademe message boards, where individuals can post a message, without the normal constraints of societal rules. What's more, when others don't agree with them, they are then able to use the internet as a tool to intimidate their opponents, and effect the cessation of balanced discussion.
It would be interesting to line these people up at a local bar and see what they had to say, I think it would be very little, if they bothered to turn up!
August 1, 2010 1:43 PM
To quote anonymous:
The internet allows access to vast amounts of information, photos, and opinions etc, that would previously been available to a select few, appropriately qualified or intelligent individuals. Who would have had the skill to interpret and determine their relevancy.
I'm all in favour of the information being available on the internet. It just appears that few rules were set at the outset, at least in NZ. The consequence has been anybody able to drive in cyber space, comfortably heading in the wrong direction and in full free flight. The cat is out of the bag, and to be fair we needed protocol and administration in place before the tap was turned on. In many ways viewing the effort to make the internet popular not much appears to have been done to deal with that popularity, or having thought out the possible ramifications, legal and otherwise. This has to be fault of legislators. The TM model is a dinosaur, eventually they'll give up or apply pre-publication checks on posts. The current model of letting the dogs out and chasing them later is extreme stupidity.
So it appears that a few hate-sites and the like are a by-product of having no active internet policing and time-delayed posting. I remain a bit of an optomist and believe that had rules been introduced and enforced, either by live moderation, or delayed moderation, the popularity of the internet wouldn't have been negatively effected as posters would just have accepted fairly strict rules as the norm. Unfortunately for now, the norm needs to be restrained and a fresh start made. We'd all benefit from that, even those who have for whatever reason believed that defaming and stalking were permissible. Part of that is reflected from the myopic view that the internet was like having a chat in the pub. I've seen that stated on the boards and I've heard talk that TM administrators have had some legal opinion to that view. Well, it's absolute nonsense, one press of the button can launch information into a million or more homes instantly, a chat in the pub does not in the least compare with that.
But to anonymous's first point which is probably right - the sale of papers being priority, shows that mainstream media has slipped to the thought that everyone can be treated as though they are idiots. I reject that idea, mediocre journalism is probably more dangerous than hate-sites.
Thanks for this Reader
Reader said...
You comment here that the nature of Kalnovitch's behaviour changed over time. There is a process known as 'communal reinforcement', and it appears that Kalnovitch and many others have been susceptible to its effects. The Skeptic's dictionary defines this as: "the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Often, the mass media contribute to the process by uncritically supporting the claims. More often, however, the mass media provide tacit support for untested and unsupported claims by saying nothing skeptical about even the most outlandish of claims.
Communal reinforcement explains how entire nations can pass on ineffable gibberish from generation to generation. It also explains how testimonials reinforced by other testimonials within the community of therapists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, politicians, talk show hosts, etc., can supplant and be more powerful than scientific studies or accurate gathering of data by disinterested parties."
I suspect that what we are witnessing here is an example of communal reinforcement: akin to mass hysteria. The role of the media - complicit and exacerbating, is significant. It is what happened in the case of Peter Ellis, as has been well-documented. Now that, interestingly, leads to another 'player' common to both this case and the Peter Ellis case: Martin van Beynen. A journalist who is active in both cases. You have outlined your objections to his article, used a a resource by the hate sites. He has apologised for his role in the Peter Ellis case. Will we yet see him apologise for his similar role in the Bain case? How much damage will be done first?
August 1, 2010 8:58 AM
As you have referred in your first para the mass media can readily support these outlandish claims by not critically analysing them. One could hope that it was simply laziness on their part. But more likely they are driven by a distortion of truth to cause shock and outrage among the willingly deceived. Whichever is the case it is a failure to the craft of journalism, if the seeds of truth are of no interest then why does one choose to become a journalist. Far better to write nothing if not sure of the veracity of your account of the subject, similarly if you haven't thought critically enough about it to feel confident in what you say. The first self-imposed hurdle for the writer becomes fixing the course the article or opinion piece is going to take, rather than following a trail, considering the material as objectively as possible and trying to suggest for your reader a conclusion that is factual and not emotive or pre-conceived.
Common language in the Bain case is that there is no evidence against Robin, when in fact there is a significant amount, equally saying there is a mountain of evidence against David when in fact there isn't and never was. But terms like 'mountain,' paper run alibi' appeal even though there is no place in constructive journalism for such adjectives. Which brings me van Beynan and his apology in the Ellis case, although I don't know that situation well, it appears he has learnt little from the experience. On the Bain article alone he fails as a constructive, informed journalist to bring balance and insight into a controversial and at times complex case, he takes the easy route - seemingly unconcerned by the damage - attacks the Jury and others in way that grabs headlines for a willing audience who thrive on subjects that don't need to be thought about too deeply.
I don't want to divert into the Bain case but I will mention some of the circular comment, 'why would Robin do such and such,' to show imaginary evidence against David. And another favourite, quote David as credible for something said or done that is helpful to the case against him and call him a liar at all other times.
But to move to construt failures:
A poor investigation, too much 'gut feeling' and a reliance on the fact David would cough.
Withheld evidence.
COA conducting a role as Judge and Jury.
The Crown wasting resources on a retrial.
The van Beynan article and the proliferation of hate sites.
No constructive media analysis.
The Crown failing to act on matters such as the attack of the Jury, Bain and others post trial despite the proceedings not yet being finished, and despite the Justice Department's role in delivering a miscarriage of justice that is yet to be remedied.
You comment here that the nature of Kalnovitch's behaviour changed over time. There is a process known as 'communal reinforcement', and it appears that Kalnovitch and many others have been susceptible to its effects. The Skeptic's dictionary defines this as: "the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Often, the mass media contribute to the process by uncritically supporting the claims. More often, however, the mass media provide tacit support for untested and unsupported claims by saying nothing skeptical about even the most outlandish of claims.
Communal reinforcement explains how entire nations can pass on ineffable gibberish from generation to generation. It also explains how testimonials reinforced by other testimonials within the community of therapists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, politicians, talk show hosts, etc., can supplant and be more powerful than scientific studies or accurate gathering of data by disinterested parties."
I suspect that what we are witnessing here is an example of communal reinforcement: akin to mass hysteria. The role of the media - complicit and exacerbating, is significant. It is what happened in the case of Peter Ellis, as has been well-documented. Now that, interestingly, leads to another 'player' common to both this case and the Peter Ellis case: Martin van Beynen. A journalist who is active in both cases. You have outlined your objections to his article, used a a resource by the hate sites. He has apologised for his role in the Peter Ellis case. Will we yet see him apologise for his similar role in the Bain case? How much damage will be done first?
August 1, 2010 8:58 AM
As you have referred in your first para the mass media can readily support these outlandish claims by not critically analysing them. One could hope that it was simply laziness on their part. But more likely they are driven by a distortion of truth to cause shock and outrage among the willingly deceived. Whichever is the case it is a failure to the craft of journalism, if the seeds of truth are of no interest then why does one choose to become a journalist. Far better to write nothing if not sure of the veracity of your account of the subject, similarly if you haven't thought critically enough about it to feel confident in what you say. The first self-imposed hurdle for the writer becomes fixing the course the article or opinion piece is going to take, rather than following a trail, considering the material as objectively as possible and trying to suggest for your reader a conclusion that is factual and not emotive or pre-conceived.
Common language in the Bain case is that there is no evidence against Robin, when in fact there is a significant amount, equally saying there is a mountain of evidence against David when in fact there isn't and never was. But terms like 'mountain,' paper run alibi' appeal even though there is no place in constructive journalism for such adjectives. Which brings me van Beynan and his apology in the Ellis case, although I don't know that situation well, it appears he has learnt little from the experience. On the Bain article alone he fails as a constructive, informed journalist to bring balance and insight into a controversial and at times complex case, he takes the easy route - seemingly unconcerned by the damage - attacks the Jury and others in way that grabs headlines for a willing audience who thrive on subjects that don't need to be thought about too deeply.
I don't want to divert into the Bain case but I will mention some of the circular comment, 'why would Robin do such and such,' to show imaginary evidence against David. And another favourite, quote David as credible for something said or done that is helpful to the case against him and call him a liar at all other times.
But to move to construt failures:
A poor investigation, too much 'gut feeling' and a reliance on the fact David would cough.
Withheld evidence.
COA conducting a role as Judge and Jury.
The Crown wasting resources on a retrial.
The van Beynan article and the proliferation of hate sites.
No constructive media analysis.
The Crown failing to act on matters such as the attack of the Jury, Bain and others post trial despite the proceedings not yet being finished, and despite the Justice Department's role in delivering a miscarriage of justice that is yet to be remedied.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)