you would think it would have been difficult indeed if Robin did not rest the silencer against his head when he 'suicided' I can't remember other than thinking how ridiculous it looked, whether the 'court' scenarios were all contact to the head, you are right one would assume that a contact shot would have matched Laniets entry wound
Quotegoldnkiwi (608 ) 11:21 am, Tue 19 Oct #28377
This from the two that agreed that a rifle bore is bigger than the silencer bore. Sweet little lovebirds they be. By my calculation they've got eight teeth between them and between their teeth and the back of their enlarged skulls they've got nothing except one another and a few warts and moles with hairs sticking out of them.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Stockdale going for the Moron award....again.
I would just say that I believe this hard contact wound is the wound that caused the barrel to have blood in it.This was probably the penultimate shot fired,and the final shot to Robin Bain's head did not clear all of Laniet's blood from the barrel.
Edited by supersleuth at 10:19 am, Tue 19 Oct
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:12 am, Tue 19 Oct #28376
'I would say,' 'I believe,' 'This was probably.' 'did not clear.'
The raving lunatic thinks guilt and innocence is decided on speculative guesswork. If he wasn't deliberately harming people with his inane rambling he might even be funny.
Well, one thing there is no speculation about Stockdale, is that you are a stalker, you are also a pedo apologist. You belong to a hate-site whose members are being sued, you are a liar, you have harassed David Bain in a defamatory way for a long time, you are a name dropping idiot that is so stupid you keep the defamatory harassment going even while a Court date pends for your buddies. You are so stupid that you 'commissioned' a drawing that you bring attention to in a further effort to defame David Bain. The only thing your stupid drawing proves is how completely off your rocker you are grandma. You, like your mate luckytrader, are an arsew..e. Good luck with that. Good luck also with showing how dna can remain in a rifle barrel after a high velocity projectile and gas discharge.
Edited by supersleuth at 10:19 am, Tue 19 Oct
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:12 am, Tue 19 Oct #28376
'I would say,' 'I believe,' 'This was probably.' 'did not clear.'
The raving lunatic thinks guilt and innocence is decided on speculative guesswork. If he wasn't deliberately harming people with his inane rambling he might even be funny.
Well, one thing there is no speculation about Stockdale, is that you are a stalker, you are also a pedo apologist. You belong to a hate-site whose members are being sued, you are a liar, you have harassed David Bain in a defamatory way for a long time, you are a name dropping idiot that is so stupid you keep the defamatory harassment going even while a Court date pends for your buddies. You are so stupid that you 'commissioned' a drawing that you bring attention to in a further effort to defame David Bain. The only thing your stupid drawing proves is how completely off your rocker you are grandma. You, like your mate luckytrader, are an arsew..e. Good luck with that. Good luck also with showing how dna can remain in a rifle barrel after a high velocity projectile and gas discharge.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The idiot kulkkulbelle.
kulkkulbelle wrote:
FGS, he wasn't the one who slaughtered his family in cold blood. Why does he need to worry about his "arse" as you so delicately put it
for a start:
anderson was the one who claimed to find the shell in the alcove..
anderson was the one who claimed to have seen the magazine initially standing on its edge..he claims dempster knocked it over..he then stood it back up to be photographed..
anderson was the one who claimed to find the bone fragment by the rifle..despite another stating it was in the alcove..argued at trial..
anderson was the one who claimed to make safe and secure the rifle and secure prints..put on surgical gloves thereby smudging those very prints..but not till 10 hours later at 5pm..
Quotete-aroha (67 ) 2:52 pm, Mon 18 Oct #28355
The idiot kulkkulbelle, who has previously claimed to be willing to fund Kent Parker's defence, objects to facts that point to concerns about Detective Anderson's conduct. The 'coincidences' of Anderson's involvement in a number of locations of controversial exhibits certainly should be scrutinised. But kooybrain is offended and makes the point that he wasn't the killer. Well, I think we all know that kookybrain and te-aroha wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. But not being the killer wasn't the issue, the issue is of the 'convenient' involvement of Anderson in weaving together of unsubstantiated located material that in every event 'incriminated' David. From memory he might have also been the man who had the recalled 'memory' after 15 years of the claim that David asked for 'his' glasses on the morning of the killings - how very convenient memory recall.
So kookybelle te-aroha raises matters that should be of concern to us all, and earlier draws a justifiable parallel to the Thomas case planting of evidence. It's important that these things are dealt with now. As a general principle failings in a prosecution or evidence of potential evidence fabrication have to be ruthlessly investigated, it's important for all nzers, including the Police who have to bear the brunt of criticism that should rightly be laid at the feet of the offending officers and not the whole force. Look at the conduct of a particular officer and if found wanting ask the question of the OIC, because these officers are not acting independently but toward a common task. If Weir ever does write a book I hope he will have the guts not to deny the obvious and tell the obvious and tell the real and apparent truth.
On the point of the magazine being upright. I recall that evidence was 'moved' about during the photographing of the scene to the point where there is no reason to have confidence about what were the original positions of critical exhibits. Further, idiot Mike makes some assertion's about the magazine having been knocked over by Dempster and righted by good old Anderson, I can't recall if evidence was given by Dempster on the matter, but the mere fact the defence might not have questioned Anderson about that particular 'convenience' merely shows that if Dempster didn't give evidence about it then it didn't happen. Keep up folks, now is the time to right the ship.
FGS, he wasn't the one who slaughtered his family in cold blood. Why does he need to worry about his "arse" as you so delicately put it
for a start:
anderson was the one who claimed to find the shell in the alcove..
anderson was the one who claimed to have seen the magazine initially standing on its edge..he claims dempster knocked it over..he then stood it back up to be photographed..
anderson was the one who claimed to find the bone fragment by the rifle..despite another stating it was in the alcove..argued at trial..
anderson was the one who claimed to make safe and secure the rifle and secure prints..put on surgical gloves thereby smudging those very prints..but not till 10 hours later at 5pm..
Quotete-aroha (67 ) 2:52 pm, Mon 18 Oct #28355
The idiot kulkkulbelle, who has previously claimed to be willing to fund Kent Parker's defence, objects to facts that point to concerns about Detective Anderson's conduct. The 'coincidences' of Anderson's involvement in a number of locations of controversial exhibits certainly should be scrutinised. But kooybrain is offended and makes the point that he wasn't the killer. Well, I think we all know that kookybrain and te-aroha wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. But not being the killer wasn't the issue, the issue is of the 'convenient' involvement of Anderson in weaving together of unsubstantiated located material that in every event 'incriminated' David. From memory he might have also been the man who had the recalled 'memory' after 15 years of the claim that David asked for 'his' glasses on the morning of the killings - how very convenient memory recall.
So kookybelle te-aroha raises matters that should be of concern to us all, and earlier draws a justifiable parallel to the Thomas case planting of evidence. It's important that these things are dealt with now. As a general principle failings in a prosecution or evidence of potential evidence fabrication have to be ruthlessly investigated, it's important for all nzers, including the Police who have to bear the brunt of criticism that should rightly be laid at the feet of the offending officers and not the whole force. Look at the conduct of a particular officer and if found wanting ask the question of the OIC, because these officers are not acting independently but toward a common task. If Weir ever does write a book I hope he will have the guts not to deny the obvious and tell the obvious and tell the real and apparent truth.
On the point of the magazine being upright. I recall that evidence was 'moved' about during the photographing of the scene to the point where there is no reason to have confidence about what were the original positions of critical exhibits. Further, idiot Mike makes some assertion's about the magazine having been knocked over by Dempster and righted by good old Anderson, I can't recall if evidence was given by Dempster on the matter, but the mere fact the defence might not have questioned Anderson about that particular 'convenience' merely shows that if Dempster didn't give evidence about it then it didn't happen. Keep up folks, now is the time to right the ship.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Lindsay Kennard - the drunkard.
Dear Lindsay,
I see you've been getting drunk and signing the petition heaps of times, maybe when you can stay off the booze and pills for half day could you explain how that works. I know it doesn't make any difference because the petition is as dead as a washed up mackerel, but I was interested to know how your booze and drug befuddled brain works.
I've noted now that you claim the Crown threw the Prosecution in the Bain case, apparently as you put it to save money. There's a whole lot of people that you are blaming for being wrong, maybe you should get a psychiatrist to shine a torch in one of your cauliflower ears or up one of your hairy nostrils to see what he can make of it. Maybe he might find out that your nose is blocked from snorting pills while still in the capsule and that your skull is full of wax the result of which has been that you excreted your brain out of your butt and that once finding its way to the sea poisoned that poor mackerel.
You, Lindsay Kennard, could be a mackerel poisoner and at this very moment mackerels could be swimming up your sewer to get revenge. But anyway talk to your psychiatrist about it and use a bucket for your ablutions in the meantime just to be on the safe side because mackerels swimming up your bottom could be very uncomfortable. Your psychiatrist will know what you are talking about. Sometimes Linzo binzo I feel it might be true what you say and that it is all been a big conspiracy that people want to prove you are a sad sack loser.
Yours faithfully
Nos.
I see you've been getting drunk and signing the petition heaps of times, maybe when you can stay off the booze and pills for half day could you explain how that works. I know it doesn't make any difference because the petition is as dead as a washed up mackerel, but I was interested to know how your booze and drug befuddled brain works.
I've noted now that you claim the Crown threw the Prosecution in the Bain case, apparently as you put it to save money. There's a whole lot of people that you are blaming for being wrong, maybe you should get a psychiatrist to shine a torch in one of your cauliflower ears or up one of your hairy nostrils to see what he can make of it. Maybe he might find out that your nose is blocked from snorting pills while still in the capsule and that your skull is full of wax the result of which has been that you excreted your brain out of your butt and that once finding its way to the sea poisoned that poor mackerel.
You, Lindsay Kennard, could be a mackerel poisoner and at this very moment mackerels could be swimming up your sewer to get revenge. But anyway talk to your psychiatrist about it and use a bucket for your ablutions in the meantime just to be on the safe side because mackerels swimming up your bottom could be very uncomfortable. Your psychiatrist will know what you are talking about. Sometimes Linzo binzo I feel it might be true what you say and that it is all been a big conspiracy that people want to prove you are a sad sack loser.
Yours faithfully
Nos.
Luckytrader the arse..pe questions for you...
With such a good case, the Crown snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Reminds me of certain Pakistani cricket players.
On another subject, has all the money spent on defense - officially and unofficially (one private source alone spent millions) - been accounted for?
Quotelucky_trader (1193 ) 4:40 pm, Sun 17 Oct #28339
Has the fact you are recorded (by your own hand) stalking people in contravention of the Harassment Act been accounted for, that you are in fact a criminal stalker as defined by that Act?
Has the fact that you belong to a Criminal organisation whose intention is to usurp the rule of Law and disrupt the Course of Justice been accounted for?
Did you realise what a moron you were before all the information about you became available on the Internet placed there by yourself?
How do you account for your future now that you know people you stalked now know that you did and who you are?
Now that you know you are part of the focus of an inquiry when formally you called for inquiries, how do you account for that?
What exactly was your role in outing and stalking the Christchurch Jury?
How do you account for your role in defamation and stalking that has resulted in people other than yourself being sent to trial?
Do you think you will be held to account?
Or do you think things will just go away because you are a half-deranged stalking arsew..p.?
On another subject, has all the money spent on defense - officially and unofficially (one private source alone spent millions) - been accounted for?
Quotelucky_trader (1193 ) 4:40 pm, Sun 17 Oct #28339
Has the fact you are recorded (by your own hand) stalking people in contravention of the Harassment Act been accounted for, that you are in fact a criminal stalker as defined by that Act?
Has the fact that you belong to a Criminal organisation whose intention is to usurp the rule of Law and disrupt the Course of Justice been accounted for?
Did you realise what a moron you were before all the information about you became available on the Internet placed there by yourself?
How do you account for your future now that you know people you stalked now know that you did and who you are?
Now that you know you are part of the focus of an inquiry when formally you called for inquiries, how do you account for that?
What exactly was your role in outing and stalking the Christchurch Jury?
How do you account for your role in defamation and stalking that has resulted in people other than yourself being sent to trial?
Do you think you will be held to account?
Or do you think things will just go away because you are a half-deranged stalking arsew..p.?
Kent Parker's trial date approaching....
latest on the defamation case - public at http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/news/list-of-discovery-items-sent
List of Discovery Items Sent
Today, both Vic Purkiss and Kent Parker sent off document lists for the discovery part of the defamation process. These are to be inspected by a judge in preparation for a teleconference scheduled for 27 October. At that time it is expected that a trial date will be set.
Discovery is a process whereby each side declares the documents that they wish to present to the court in support of their side of the case. This is the beginning of pre-trial deliberations which consist of much going back and forth between parties until agreements are made as to what should be presented at trial.
Even after apparently preparing documents for discovery Kent still doesn't realise his trial is not about the Bain case, it is about him running a hate-site from where defamation entered the public arena. Defamation that he is being taken to task for. Wake up soon Kent you'll miss all the fun.
Confidentially Kent were you asked to discover communications between your hate-site members, between you and your co-defendant?
List of Discovery Items Sent
Today, both Vic Purkiss and Kent Parker sent off document lists for the discovery part of the defamation process. These are to be inspected by a judge in preparation for a teleconference scheduled for 27 October. At that time it is expected that a trial date will be set.
Discovery is a process whereby each side declares the documents that they wish to present to the court in support of their side of the case. This is the beginning of pre-trial deliberations which consist of much going back and forth between parties until agreements are made as to what should be presented at trial.
Even after apparently preparing documents for discovery Kent still doesn't realise his trial is not about the Bain case, it is about him running a hate-site from where defamation entered the public arena. Defamation that he is being taken to task for. Wake up soon Kent you'll miss all the fun.
Confidentially Kent were you asked to discover communications between your hate-site members, between you and your co-defendant?
Kent Parkers frail grip on reality weakens.......
latest publicly open blog at counterspin http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/some-cases-where-the-investigation-really-was-dodgy
The following (abridged) from Kent Parker, when once pared of self-supporting dribble, shows the pressure he is facing and his inability to handle it.
Some Cases Where the Investigation Really was Dodgy
Blog posts at counterspin are by nature opinion pieces. Please adhere to our Terms and Conditions when posting.
In the wake of calls for a re-investigation of the Crewe murders for which Arthur Allan Thomas was acquitted after serving 9 years for false imprisonment, a barrister has commented on cases where police have been over zealous in their prosecution of justice. This barrister mentions the Thomas case, and while he didn't work on that particular case, he worked in other cases that involved the same police officers. The Thomas case is notable in that the investigation into police conduct did actually find the police guilty of misconduct but the powers that be failed to provide sufficient punishment, well in the eyes of many, including the barrister.
Joe Karam has tried to make the Bain case look like the Arthur Allan Thomas case in his quest for a compensatory handout.The worst thing that happened from what I can see is that someone measured the rifle length incorrectly but this was corrected in the original trial and had no effect on the outcome.The simple truth is that the original investigation was good. Joe Karam has made it out to be a shambles and taken every opportunity to broadcast this view, in order to serve his own needs. It helped cast doubt and uncertainty over the original prosecution and trial and provided a very good foundation for the reasonable doubt that eventually arose. What was originally clear and simple, has been made mysterious and muddied. Have a look at the PCA report and decide for yourselves.
» Kent Parker's blog
As can be seen from above Kent Parker feels some alarm at the prospect that there may be those among us that see connections between the falsity of the investigation of the Crew murders and that of inquiry into the deaths of the Bain family.
Of course the importance of this would be paramount in Kent's mind because he is getting his butt sued and might well imagine in his own particular insular way that any Jury in his (Kent's) trial might well be influenced by the much publicised findings in the Crew case. So to preserve his personal situation he must make (what is to him obviously an almost fatal scenario for him legally) distinctions between that case and the Bain case. What follows from that is self-interest predictable drivel.
Of course Kent defends the Trail that was and will forever be deemed an actual Miscarriage of Justice. A trial which for the any passing punter I should say was characterised by with-held evidence, objective only evidence search (that was that David was guilty) an absolute implausible scenario that relied on a clever killer needing to be seen on a paper run when in fact the evidence of the papers proved he'd done the paper round. A clever killer who took ownership of the rifle used in the killings, claiming to be the only one with access to it. A fairly obvious suicide scene with an upward trajectory of an assailant who had blood wiped hands with bruises to one of them. The same mans blood found inside the barrel of the rifle. A refusal by the police to (at any time) investigate a likely motive against the killer, Robin Bain. Kent needs to defend this trial because he sees that along with a PCA report as having more authority that a Privy Council ruling determining that the Trial was a MOJ and later a properly instructed Jury finding the target of Kent's campaign innocent in a unanimous decision after very short time of deliberation. Sorry Kent, you don't get off base 1 with this. You'll need to face up to your responsibilities rather than quote discredited events that you favour but which have been showing to not hold water. Bad leaking in fact, much like your hate-site over a long period of time. Before closing on this point, and just to underline how little of the case Parker has ever understood: the 'mistake' in measuring the rifle, may very well have been deliberate, because there was a deliberate position by the Crown that suicide with a rifle that had a silencer attached was difficult and unlikely, which follows that the longer the barrel the more improbable the suicidee being able to reach the trigger. 'Mistakes' for you Parker is what has come out of your debilitated brain and motor mouth. A psychologist should at least have learnt to think about what they are saying, and the credibility of it before opening his or her mouth - clearly you didn't in the past and still don't.
Kent goes on to say that Joe Karam tried or trys to make the Bain case look like the Crew case. I'm not aware that he ever has, and I'm sure he wouldn't assume that the public would look for connection between events some 20 years apart, different circumstances, different personnel and try to draw anything other than a general connection, if any at all. But what is in fact revealed by kent is that he believes the public to be gullible and influenced by Joe Karam when in fact Kent Parker feelings of public gullibility are that which have landed him in Court.
From JFRB Facebook Wall (abridged)
Blair Huston
I have lost friends & been verbally attacked over my public stance on David Bain. I have lost at least one good customer resulting in significant financial loss. Is that fair? I’m not sure, but its a price I’m prepared to pay given my strong belief that David Bain is guilty.
Hear we hear from Blair somebody also 'victimised' for having an opinion according to his report and clearly not able to discern that you don't argue with customers or try to ram your opinions down their throats. No sign of the psychologist being able to tell a fellow 'victim' that espousing your views in way that gets you publicly 'attacked' or loses you customers is foolish in the first instance and probably futile in the second.
Then like all good comedies where amateur paranoid sleuths operate...Ralph happens along, to enhance Kent's unspoken but implied paranoia....
Submitted by Ralph on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:35pm.
Uping the ante
We can expect the Defence to up the ante and try and capitalise on the publicity about further questions about the AAT convictions.Indeed in this mornings Herald a Barrister is describing how police have tried to cut corners secure convictions for career advancement and other dubious motives. No doubt the Bain defence will do their best to further discredit the police investigation in light of Rochelle Crewe request for the Police commissioner to reopen the case.This is where Milton Weir's book could prove to be so timely and further bog down the Defence with more questions and controversies as happened with The Investigator documentary.
We must be vigorous in explaining and advocating the significant distinctions beteween the Bain and Crewe murders.Would it be possible to do a media release if Karam and co get carried away reminding the public of those distictions?.Certainly letter's to the editor could set the ball rolling.Of course, further blogs and postings on Counterspin etc.
The 'good' lieutenant who for some reason believes that Kent still has some credibility with the press who might willingly be so dumb to be taken in my a press release from Kent to the effect of 'don't be fooled people, don't think that the Bain case is anything like the Crewe murders and that therefore I should be found guilty of defaming Joe Karam.'
Kent not wishing to be exposed for finally understanding that the Press are only interested in him as some sort of nut from a hate-site that caught himself out stalking a Jury, spreading lies and information and defaming Joe Karam, whilst approving of the idea (a press release) placates Ralph with a mysterious statement that might make sense to a fellow paranoiac.
'but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.'
reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:48pm.
Yeah, good comments, Ralph,
Yeah, good comments, Ralph, but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.
reply
Quotes
Quite right, there is only so much you can do and you've done a lot. Mounted a hate-campaign, sought publicity and got yourself sued. No use crying about it now Kent, you were not the victim, you chose to victimise others and held silent while your supporters broke the law when pursuing your objectives.
Footnote: For those interested in some of the abridged material Kent passes derogatory comment about Michael Laws were previously he implied a close and knowing relationship of some sort. Clearly Kent, according to his own words, thinks Laws didn't do a good job in the debate with Joe Karam. When in fact the broadcaster's main interest we must all assume was to get to the truth from the trial transcript and may very well have felt contented that a lot of the misinformation forwarded by Kent and his fellows had been discredited, much like Kent, much like Kent. Perhaps also an indication that Laws may now have an entirely different view of kent's hate-sites and crusades.
The following (abridged) from Kent Parker, when once pared of self-supporting dribble, shows the pressure he is facing and his inability to handle it.
Some Cases Where the Investigation Really was Dodgy
Blog posts at counterspin are by nature opinion pieces. Please adhere to our Terms and Conditions when posting.
In the wake of calls for a re-investigation of the Crewe murders for which Arthur Allan Thomas was acquitted after serving 9 years for false imprisonment, a barrister has commented on cases where police have been over zealous in their prosecution of justice. This barrister mentions the Thomas case, and while he didn't work on that particular case, he worked in other cases that involved the same police officers. The Thomas case is notable in that the investigation into police conduct did actually find the police guilty of misconduct but the powers that be failed to provide sufficient punishment, well in the eyes of many, including the barrister.
Joe Karam has tried to make the Bain case look like the Arthur Allan Thomas case in his quest for a compensatory handout.
» Kent Parker's blog
As can be seen from above Kent Parker feels some alarm at the prospect that there may be those among us that see connections between the falsity of the investigation of the Crew murders and that of inquiry into the deaths of the Bain family.
Of course the importance of this would be paramount in Kent's mind because he is getting his butt sued and might well imagine in his own particular insular way that any Jury in his (Kent's) trial might well be influenced by the much publicised findings in the Crew case. So to preserve his personal situation he must make (what is to him obviously an almost fatal scenario for him legally) distinctions between that case and the Bain case. What follows from that is self-interest predictable drivel.
Of course Kent defends the Trail that was and will forever be deemed an actual Miscarriage of Justice. A trial which for the any passing punter I should say was characterised by with-held evidence, objective only evidence search (that was that David was guilty) an absolute implausible scenario that relied on a clever killer needing to be seen on a paper run when in fact the evidence of the papers proved he'd done the paper round. A clever killer who took ownership of the rifle used in the killings, claiming to be the only one with access to it. A fairly obvious suicide scene with an upward trajectory of an assailant who had blood wiped hands with bruises to one of them. The same mans blood found inside the barrel of the rifle. A refusal by the police to (at any time) investigate a likely motive against the killer, Robin Bain. Kent needs to defend this trial because he sees that along with a PCA report as having more authority that a Privy Council ruling determining that the Trial was a MOJ and later a properly instructed Jury finding the target of Kent's campaign innocent in a unanimous decision after very short time of deliberation. Sorry Kent, you don't get off base 1 with this. You'll need to face up to your responsibilities rather than quote discredited events that you favour but which have been showing to not hold water. Bad leaking in fact, much like your hate-site over a long period of time. Before closing on this point, and just to underline how little of the case Parker has ever understood: the 'mistake' in measuring the rifle, may very well have been deliberate, because there was a deliberate position by the Crown that suicide with a rifle that had a silencer attached was difficult and unlikely, which follows that the longer the barrel the more improbable the suicidee being able to reach the trigger. 'Mistakes' for you Parker is what has come out of your debilitated brain and motor mouth. A psychologist should at least have learnt to think about what they are saying, and the credibility of it before opening his or her mouth - clearly you didn't in the past and still don't.
Kent goes on to say that Joe Karam tried or trys to make the Bain case look like the Crew case. I'm not aware that he ever has, and I'm sure he wouldn't assume that the public would look for connection between events some 20 years apart, different circumstances, different personnel and try to draw anything other than a general connection, if any at all. But what is in fact revealed by kent is that he believes the public to be gullible and influenced by Joe Karam when in fact Kent Parker feelings of public gullibility are that which have landed him in Court.
From JFRB Facebook Wall (abridged)
Blair Huston
I have lost friends & been verbally attacked over my public stance on David Bain. I have lost at least one good customer resulting in significant financial loss. Is that fair? I’m not sure, but its a price I’m prepared to pay given my strong belief that David Bain is guilty.
Hear we hear from Blair somebody also 'victimised' for having an opinion according to his report and clearly not able to discern that you don't argue with customers or try to ram your opinions down their throats. No sign of the psychologist being able to tell a fellow 'victim' that espousing your views in way that gets you publicly 'attacked' or loses you customers is foolish in the first instance and probably futile in the second.
Then like all good comedies where amateur paranoid sleuths operate...Ralph happens along, to enhance Kent's unspoken but implied paranoia....
Submitted by Ralph on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:35pm.
Uping the ante
We can expect the Defence to up the ante and try and capitalise on the publicity about further questions about the AAT convictions.Indeed in this mornings Herald a Barrister is describing how police have tried to cut corners secure convictions for career advancement and other dubious motives. No doubt the Bain defence will do their best to further discredit the police investigation in light of Rochelle Crewe request for the Police commissioner to reopen the case.This is where Milton Weir's book could prove to be so timely and further bog down the Defence with more questions and controversies as happened with The Investigator documentary.
We must be vigorous in explaining and advocating the significant distinctions beteween the Bain and Crewe murders.Would it be possible to do a media release if Karam and co get carried away reminding the public of those distictions?.Certainly letter's to the editor could set the ball rolling.Of course, further blogs and postings on Counterspin etc.
The 'good' lieutenant who for some reason believes that Kent still has some credibility with the press who might willingly be so dumb to be taken in my a press release from Kent to the effect of 'don't be fooled people, don't think that the Bain case is anything like the Crewe murders and that therefore I should be found guilty of defaming Joe Karam.'
Kent not wishing to be exposed for finally understanding that the Press are only interested in him as some sort of nut from a hate-site that caught himself out stalking a Jury, spreading lies and information and defaming Joe Karam, whilst approving of the idea (a press release) placates Ralph with a mysterious statement that might make sense to a fellow paranoiac.
'but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.'
reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:48pm.
Yeah, good comments, Ralph,
Yeah, good comments, Ralph, but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.
reply
Quotes
Quite right, there is only so much you can do and you've done a lot. Mounted a hate-campaign, sought publicity and got yourself sued. No use crying about it now Kent, you were not the victim, you chose to victimise others and held silent while your supporters broke the law when pursuing your objectives.
Footnote: For those interested in some of the abridged material Kent passes derogatory comment about Michael Laws were previously he implied a close and knowing relationship of some sort. Clearly Kent, according to his own words, thinks Laws didn't do a good job in the debate with Joe Karam. When in fact the broadcaster's main interest we must all assume was to get to the truth from the trial transcript and may very well have felt contented that a lot of the misinformation forwarded by Kent and his fellows had been discredited, much like Kent, much like Kent. Perhaps also an indication that Laws may now have an entirely different view of kent's hate-sites and crusades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)