Christine Williams (misspw) the dirty work of a stalker and liar.

He has insight into the family that nobody else has. If you are interested in the truth in this case you will listen to his honestly expressed opinion. Your suggestion that the family were only interested in the money does your credibility on these threads no good at all. His affection for this family is genuine and you can hear that clearly. The inheritance which you are obsessed with would have been divided by so many it was not much anyhow and for all you know they did something with it in memory of the family. What would you say then if someone could provide evidence of that?

Quotemisspw (65 ) 8:19 pm, Fri 10 Sep #26661

Here we see Christine Williams arguing why David Bain should continue to be denied his inheritance. She uses the argument that David's uncle Michael has 'insight' into the family that nobody else has and readers who are interested in the 'truth' will listen to uncle Michael's 'honestly expressed opinions.' But, before considering the merits of this apparent suggestion of religious witchcraft of some sort that we (the readers) should listen to someone who has insight into the family that nobody else has. We must be clear on somethings that are not subjective but which are relevant to the blind faith approach offered by a person (Christine Williams) who is already revealed as a stalker and somebody so 'objective' that she wanted to watch an innocent man hung and visible in torch light.

Uncle Michael was responsible for David's inheritance being disbursed to other members of the family at a time when David was falsely imprisoned. Uncle Michael must have been aware, as the majority of the country was, that David always denied his guilt, despite even Uncle Michael trying to elicit a confession from him. Uncle Michael was aware also, that David continued to fight for his freedom despite numerous setbacks. The disbursement or redistribution of David's inheritance was Court ordered, having been taken to the Court by his family despite their awareness that David continued to fight to have his conviction overturned. The Law that a person should not benefit from his or her crime was applied because at that point David was convicted of murder x 5. Of course now David stands as innocence man, no convictions and facing no charges. His status now is such that had Uncle Michael allow due process to unfold that David would have by now received his rightful inheritance in accordance with his parent's wills. Uncle Michael is silent on that matter, absolutely silent. Christine Williams trys to divert readers from the truth by suggesting that the inheritance for David would not have been much anyway - due to the number of other beneficiaries. I however, believe that David and his siblings were the only beneficiaries and that what is rightfully has been taken illegally.

David's lawyer Michael Reed has already publicly expressed his view, and I am sure he is right, that David's rightful inheritance should be returned. But Uncle Michael won't talk about that. What Uncle Michael will talk about is his wonderful brother who, as history records, is seen by many as a man who killed his own family. Michael, wants the country to trust in his instinct of why his brother was not a murderer (but therefore his innocent son was,) and wants those that are interested to be content that. Uncle Michael won't speak about David's money. And you can see that Uncle Michael cannot fathom that because he has gone public (and only since David was found innocent) that people are interested in a complete picture, not what he will or won't talk about, but the truth. The truth many are interested in is how, in law or in good conscience, one man can deny another property and freedom on the basis of the first man's (as misspw puts it) insight. Divine insight I don't think so. It looks to me that Uncle Michael is unable to accept the Law and due process and unable to see that another's property, stolen, misappropriated, taken prematurely or mistakenly should be returned - in Law there is no other way, no witchcraft, or religion, propaganda, or claims of insight defeat the Law and the protection of a citizen's rights and property.

Nevertheless, Christine Williams works away at the cause, citing God and doom in equal measure, stalking and lying her way as she goes about her evil work.

drrh brain-dead Stockdale...the penny almost drops...

Quit stirring,ro.I reckon some of us might be able to make a case for entrapment,this whole thing does seem to be orchestrated.

Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:39 am, Sat 11 Sep #26875

Dear Mad Mike,
I can confirm that you have indeed been entrapped by the disordered, convoluted meandering of your brain. That's one excuse for you that can reasonably be accepted as to why you are an idiot.

However, on the other hand there is nothing acceptable about your stalking, lying, and indecent behaviour or your disturbing support for paedophilia that you share with your already named 'friends' from your rotten hate-sites. You, and to just name a few, misspw, Ralpho devo, goldnkiwi are soulless, spineless, cowards.

All the best, avoid entrapment where possible and prepare for the ride of your life unprotected by you own bewildering ego and incessant lies and persecution. And when you sit, confused by your final departure from fantasy, and see the real world and your role in trying to dismember other people's freedoms and rights, recall your first thoughts of being on some kind of crusade - remember then, that you were warned of your impending failure and exposure as a devil of the night.

GNG.

PS I've looked in your drawer and your socks are made for a beast with cloven feet.

Piggy banks...by Goodnewsguy

from watcher..

Watcher said...
It makes perfect sense that TM would enjoin the errant posters. Hopefully all the moronic folk that are enjoined have enough in their piggy banks to pay.

September 10, 2010 10:13 PM

But aren't they such cute little piggies? I just popped out the back and they're all being good little piggies even though I can't see their piggy banks under their little curly tails.

My own opinion is that cute little piggies should have compulsory piggy banks under their curly tails when a wolf is looking for them, just for convenience's sake and to save on parking tickets and other curly situations.

Shift toward enjoinment?

Don't think 'enjoinment' is an actual word but I'm using in context of what could be another signal that Trade Me will soon enjoin posters who have made defamatory comment about Joe Karam.

We know the first hurdle has been passed already in that The Court has agreed to the option that TM can enjoin posters who were the primary source of the defamatory comments, 'people' like kalnovitch, luckytrader, nina_s, misspw, rodney osook to name just a few. Anybody that has watched TM will have noted that apart from a few wise heads who have simply run for cover, most of those that have posted defamatory material continue, or continued as long possible do so with a 'hare looking from a hole' policy. Tentatively looking out from its hole, like a frightened hare and sniffing before defaming, or else trying to appear suddenly innocent and then after awhile returning to former habits. First of all for those so deluded, it can be a single event of defamation, it doesn't have to be continuous and is not somehow mitigated by the poster appearing to turn over a new leaf. All these simple tactics or illusions only satisfy the simple minded - of which the hangbainer's ranks are replete.

But the most recent signal (after the application to enjoin posters) is that Trade Me moderating policy was recently 'beefed up.' Not only that, but of recent weeks defamatory posts of Joe Karam have become prevalent again, and whilst defamatory comment against David was for awhile curtailed is again in full force - and Trade Me are not removing the defamatory material. This has to be deliberate on TM's part, despite the fact it can effectively be seen as turning 180 degrees in possibly a too transparent, and too late tactic. One has to ask why TM would do this and have the risk of further citations brought against them. Would it be because TM has decided to enjoin posters and the policy change on removing defamatory material is a (some what belated) effort to say, again - it's stated in the T&C that posters are responsible, that the posters are wholly responsible for the defamation, informed of those conditions and in agreement with them. I'm starting to think so.

Personally, I am not at all surprised that TM are clearly considering enjoining their 'side show' customers. It makes sense for Trade Me. TM has the opportunity to show itself as a somewhat amateur, cottage industry type, publisher relying on the good sense of its users to abide by it's rules. Do I think it will work? No, not completely, but it might take a 0 or two of the final sum of payment and shift those sums of money to the supergoofs, swissy, golfergolds and other similar morons of the cyber world. Won't it be fun?

'Evidence' by omission.....

Now that David's trial is over, and the hangbainers (love Robins - pedo supporters) are slowly realising that the trial went against them they are holding another using 'evidence' by omission. They are capable of holding a full trial with this 'evidence' that was never given at the trial, much of it ruled inadmissible and a fair body of it either made up completely or the result of hopeful deductions.

So how did that lens get in Stephen Bain's room cyber?Did it somehow fly there?David Bain admitted he was wearing those glasses that weekend and they were found damaged in his room with one lens missing.That lens was found in Stephen Bain's room.
Robin Bain flipped out,give us a break.Can't you come up with something better than that?

Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 11:06 am, Fri 10 Sep #26349

Superidiot offers a good example here. Don't bother if you've missed it before as generally he posts about it several times a day. Above he asks cybernana how the lens got in the room when of course he really wants to ask that question of Joe or David, but the point is David in particular has no obligation to explain how various items of evidence 'arrived' in various places. There is no onus on David to explain such questions, in this particular case my feeling is that the lens was planted as it was 'found' after many days of searching the room, by an officer who was not tasked with searching that room but rather was in charge of the scene. By 'chance' he also happened to 'find' it in an unusual circumstances, having returned to the house after hours to make the 'discovery.'

Superidiot also makes the continuous claim that David admitted wearing his mother's glasses that weekend, when in fact he gave no such evidence. Not one word of this (the wearing of the glasses) is true. The 'admissions' that David was alleged to have made were not given under oath by the witnesses that superidiot claims 'prove' that David wore the glasses that weekend. In fact no witness gave evidence that they saw him wear the glasses nor that he said he did. The anecdotal evidence that suggests David did admit wearing the glasses was never given in Court nor tested, so in fact there is no evidence existing other than in superidiot's flimsy brain. I am aware of the two people who made some claims about this but in both cases I believe it was unreliable at best, of course the Crown did not call those potential witnesses so there is no point to made from it anyway - apart from the fact that superidiot can't understand the obvious. David didn't wear the glasses that weekend and that is all there is to it.

For another display of 'evidence' by omission where have some childhood friends of David's that made claims about what could be purportedly a 'similar use' alibi. However the material didn't reach evidence status being rejected by the Supreme Court as inadmissible. So again there is no evidence in support of this false 'alibi' claim that is now used by the disenfranchised morons. Of course that is not evidence at all doesn't stop them using in their continued attacks against David and against our system of Justice.

One of the big problems for the hangers is that they're morons and that every week one of them gets to be moron of the week and that's pretty exciting for them and gives them an excuse to get down and morony at every opportunity. Unfortunately, while they simply see it as an opportunity to gain a coveted title, they don't realise or care about the harm that they do. They in general have continued to perpetrate defamatory harassment against others to protect themselves from what must be for them a fear of the world, afraid to think for themselves or to be exposed in some way. One has even called for statues to be made of dear daddy the perpetrator. But having said that, if one could put up with the lies, the misinformation, the stalking, the idolisation of paedophilia, the smell and funny noises they probably wouldn't be a bad bunch - not that you'd invite any of them home.

A Stockdale fan...

project_hr wrote to Stockdale:

Don't flatter yourself, in my opinion you are an idiot with nothing but repeated statements to make. You continually argue the same points despite people giving you the answers. You don't seem to remember from one day to the next, that you've already had that conversation. Most of your posts make no sense whatsoever. For some reason you think you are important and somewhat of an expert. In fact you are dead ignorant and well past your useby date. People don't laugh with you, they laugh at you.
On top of that you have been exposed as a stalker, and someone that excuses the sexual abuse of children in certain circumstances.

Why would I want to talk to you?

A stuck record style idiot, with memory loss, that doesn't make sense, self-important, ignorant, of no value, a joke, a stalker and paedophile apologist. Sounds like Stockdale. Glad I'm not the only one that noticed.

Justice in the South Seas

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/4109525/NZ-police-blamed-for-Solomon-trial-botch-up

In the foregoing, a High Court Judge ruled statements by 2 defendants as inadmissible. Basically, the Police denied the defendants due process including reading the suspects their rights and telling them that whatever they might say could be used against them. The Judge noted (in his words) that there were 'deficiencies in process' that 'tainted the entire interview' with the defendants and threw the statements out although not the charges against the 2 defendants.

In the Bain case there were clearly 'deficiencies in process' probably encompassing the whole case from the first minutes/hours of the investigation beginning. The police, probably correctly, assumed that the perpetrator had to be David or Robin, when they later 'decided' it was David it meant that evidence against Robin was either not pursued or ignored. To my mind that in itself was a Miscarriage of Justice along with the 'decision' of which of the two men it was, and which person therefore evidence against was to be looked for.

Let's look at the evidence against Robin that was either ignored or not pursued. Day 3 of the inquiry police were told of a potential motive, which they ignored, later one of the officers gave evidence to the effect they (the Police) weren't interested in incest because they had a murder to solve. That displays the mindset, the belief that David was guilty and whether or not Robin was an abuser of his children was neither her nor there in the greater picture. The uninterrupted blood spatter across the floor from Robin's body and on the curtains, they explained that later as proof that David stood behind the curtain, completely disregarding the nonsense of such a theory and in particular how David, standing behind the curtain, had been able to get an upward trajectory shot that required the rifle barrel to be touching Robin's head. Other things, like the fresh blood on Robin's trousers in the van, the blood and hair found in the van and never tested. The accurate profiling of Robin that should have, like it or not, shown that he was a man with real problems at the time of his death.

Not testing all of the samples of DNA found on Robin, not doing a GSR test, not seeking to reconcile the dna found inside the rifle and silencer, not seeking to reconcile that the first four killings were killer dominant downward trajectory and the last was killer 'passive' upward trajectory. Not being able to reconcile the frankness of the admissions that David innocently made, that his was the rifle, that only he had a key to it, not knowing that his sister was a prostitute and on it goes. The difficulty of David being seen outside the house when the killings had, in the final analysis, already happened. There being no motive, not that one is required in law, for David to have committed the killing, the only motives would come years later from frantic people trying to cover up or disguise Robin's incest.

Whereas in Judge David Cameron's view the 'deficiencies of process' in accordance with the suspects rights being ignored 'tainted the entire interview' it could easily be accepted that the 'deficiencies of process' in the Bain investigation 'tainted' not the entire interview but the entire inquiry. One of the most disturbing features is that it effectively took the Police until June last year to concede they'd arrested and imprisoned the wrong man, the evidence of which had not come from themselves, although it had been available to them from the outset had they not chosen to ignore it, but came instead from witnesses and experts who, given the opportunity, would have concluded that the Bain case was murder/suicide. That seems to display the failings that can happen in the adversary system, where it becomes personal for prosecuting authorities, personal rather that professional and questioning of anything that doesn't bear scrutiny. There was never a rush to 'solve' this case, there was all the time in the world. And all the time in the world for Courts (post the Privy Council decision) or the Solicitor General to acknowledge the obvious that the 'deficiencies of process' defeated Justice and Justice from being seen to be done. A point is reached when a decision can be made, that a tyre is flat and no amount of turning on the hub will make it anything other than still flat. Much like that it can be accepted the realisation that some one's gut instinct was wrong when they searched for the wrong evidence and ignored that which should never have been ignored.