Robin Bain - how was it they charged his son?

Somebody recently wrote to myself and 3 others with the question:
What do you think is the most serious issue with the investigation and history of the Bain case?

The 4 people asked comprised an informed (as to the case) lay person, and equally informed Scientist and Psychologist and of course myself. The question was actually for 10 answers on a level of importance 1 to 10 and was qualified that the question(s) should be 'That is, one thing had it been done differently might have changed the whole thing and found the truth.'

Here are the answers which ironically were contained to a single answer rather than the need for a graduated 10.

1 says...A full investigation into Robin.

Answered by questionnaire: Mmm - that's what I think to.
My feeling is that everything else over the years is just built on that foundation.

2 says...In my opinion, it would be treating the crime scene as such from the start, and extensive photos taken before it was treated as a scenic tour by so many Police and personnel. If I can have 2, the second which is as important as the first was to let the pathologist into the house as early as possible.

Answered by the questionnaire: There might have been extensive photos taken before the scenic tours. No-one knows when the photos were taken. Some were obviously taken before 10.30; the video was started at 10:30 then more photos later. Trouble is no-one made any record of the photos. Weir should have done, and possibly the photographers too, but when the records were kept they have disappeared. That's what Schollum's stuff was trying to do - trying to stop it looking as slack as it was. Oh, and trying to  make it look like Weir was right about the lens. Schollum did the work for an earlier investigation and - get this - the police dismissed it as rubbish then.

3 says...Hi all. I reckon the most serious issue was that very early they allowed a theory to become a creed, at which point they started to only focus on anything, no matter how insignificant, that put David in a bad light. At the same time the ignored the glaring evidence against Robin - in fact they not only ignored it they threw it out.
So the one thing they could have done different, as 1 says, they should have investigated Robin.

Answered by questionnaire...Reassuring.

3 adds....The police got caught up in some kind of confirmation bias trap. It effectively gin-trapped their ability to properly investigate the tragedy. You would think they would learn to watch out for this sort of thing when they train to become a detective.

Answered by questionnaire.....According toan ex-senior detective I know, they are taught the opposite - to go with their gut feeling and set out to prove it.

1 says...Actually I'm probably too generous with my #1. Perhaps should be 'final death scene' as I use to call it. Blood on his hands, including his palms, damaged hands, the scene looking like suicide, the family difficulties, upward trajectory, no spatter shielding, the blood inside the barrel = suicide. They were actually down that track, had information coming in about incest - the changed course, why?

Answered by questionnaire.....That 'why' is something that has bugged me all along, and I think I have found the answer. I thought the answer was more likely to be something banal, because life tends to governed by the banal!
You listen to the 111 call: the way when David says 'hurry up' Dempsey (call centre) replies 'alright' in a very aggrieved tone. That tone of voice has always worried me: It's not not an appropriate response. Anyway, turns out Dempsey, at the end of the long shift, tired and wanting to get home, was convinced David's call was fake. He told his bosses and the other emergency staff so. Then the get to the scene and it's not. So I think they (the ambos) were primed by that to thinking it was   a fake. And because of that mindset, they saw fakes everywhere the looked - David's faint wasn't recognised as a faint but seen as fake fit. His distress was seen as fake because he was so hyper-alert (as he would be, but they were clearly not great psychologists). The cops not on the scene much - Robinson and the others - take the scene at face value: murder suicide. But Weir and Doyle, on the scene, talking to the ambos...they get infected with the fake mindset. Once that has happened, the rest is just a domino cascade.

Finish

To summarise the above, all four including the questionnaire agree in two different ways, the key is the non-investigation of Robin, person 2 confirming this by raising the death scene integrity which clearly to this day confirms Robin as the killer.

Before continuing I must make it clear that the Crown were never able to reduce or delete any of the following recorded above...Blood on his hands, including his palms, damaged hands, the scene looking like suicide, the family difficulties, upward trajectory, no spatter shielding, the blood inside the barrel = suicide. They were actually down that track, had information coming in about incest - the changed course, why?
None of these points of evidence were able to be reduced or deleted by the Crown or investigating officers, there was an attempt to distance the rifle from Robin's head at the 2nd trial, with 3 different Pathologists increasing the distance, but the original pathologist, Dempster,  who was at the scene maintaining the distance as contact or close contact. On that point, distancing the silencer tip from Robin's head was counter productive to his blood and dna found deep inside the barrel and counter productive to the evidence of an upward trajectory shot. All the evidence in the world could not delete from murder-suicide. Equally, the lack of spatter shield signified that there was no one else in the room at the time of Robin's death. The damage to Robin's hands, including the smears inside his palms corroborated his involvement in the murders, passive victims to homicide do not have bloody and bruised hands, certainly not smears on their palms, nor do they rest their heads against the barrel. For me this is one of the most disturbing issues of the Bain case - that the evidence always indicated suicide, indeed the investigation was heading down that track. Equally disturbing is the fact that David Bain need go through this Royal Prerogative nonsense despite being found not guilty.

Anyway, as to two points recorded in the dialogue between those above which bear examination.
The direction to go with 'gut feeling.' Really, this can have no place in modern policing. 'Gut feeling,' doesn't even have a scientific or any other realistic basis and when you consider it - there is an introduction of immediate bias. For example their was a 'gut feeling' about Scott Watson's guilt that has also resulted in a conviction the basis of which is eroded. 'Gut feeling' in my opinion is an open invitation that allows a prejudice against the way a suspect looks, what record they may or may not have, the 'feeling' an investigating officer might have about the suspect - none of these evaluations are evidence, but what follows from them is the 'opportunity' to exclude evidence that doesn't fit the 'gut feeling' and to look only for evidence compatible with that 'feeling.'

One thing these mojs are teaching the public, and hopefully the police alike, is that 'gut feeling' has no place in modern policing, and additionally, they lead to a closed mind situation which isn't even a poor substitute for Justice. Additionally, within the prosecuting authorities and the Courts there should be eternal shame that there are efforts to uphold 'gut feelings' when the so obviously result in mojs, and that looking for 'other' evidence, when critical evidence is proven as failed, provides a 'second bite at the cherry' that true Justice would never allow. If it sucks and stinks, throw the whole case out and don't waste millions on dollars on a pile of shit that began as a 'gut feeling.'

The second point of interest from the dialogue above, 'the priming' for the 'fake' call that turned out not to be fake. It might surprise some but I found some relief in this answer, something which I had long thought about, and which had me at times reaching for conspiracy theories. One of which included the fact that Robin Bain was a Freemason and my suspicions that the murder suicide was 'dissolved' as a protection of  'ones' own. I think now that it is far more likely that the priming for the 'fake' instigated the bias mindset, and although there might have been 'brothers' concerned that one of their own was accused of not only murder but of incest or worse, that it was not necessarily an influence in a poorly investigated murder-suicide.

Finally, I didn't know until yesterday the Police themselves rejected the efforts to 'place' the dusty lens in the relevant photo as anything more that a trick of light - how desperate of the Crown to revisit that at trial 2 and try to give it credibility.

Scott Watson - does it matter?

One of the delays in Watson being given a decision to his application under the Prerogative of Mercy is that the Justice Department now need confirmation (signed affidavits) by Scott's lawyers (couldn't they just ring or write to them) at his trial that they did not know about an earlier identification procedure where main witnesses did not recognise Watson in a photo montage.
This is a procedural issue, if the lawyers did know and did not make an issue of it then the Law expects Scott to live with that, a 'tough luck' situation - 'your lawyers knew about it and didn't raise it so  bad luck.' When you think about that procedure the very exercise of it is a denial of Scott's rights. Every person facing prosecution is entitled to a fair trail despite who might be acting for him or her and what they may or may not decide at trial to use. Overall, this is fair because many guilty people often  round on their lawyers after their trials. The common procedures in terms of important evidence is that lawyers require the defendant to agree  for the lawyer to employ or not employ various options, including cross-examination of evidence, presentation of evidence and so on.
It becomes unfair when a man has spent years of his life in prison on circumstantial evidence, for a crime for which he had no motive to commit,  is required to legitimise what his lawyers might or might not have known at the time of the trial. In this case surely the single issue is that witnesses shown a montage of photos, in which a photo of Scott was included, did not identify him as the last man seen with the two deceased.
So why does the department use yet another tactic to deny Watson his freedom or the right to a fair trial where all the admissible evidence is heard? Watson's father, Chris, is quoted as saying that he believes it is an intentional delaying tactic by the Crown. Who can blame him, this application is years old, there is a public unease about this case that won't go away along with the knowledge that intentional misinformation was leaked to the public before and after Scott's arrest. Now the Crown ask for 'proof' that the lawyers didn't know - as if it could  matter more than the fact that Scott was effectively identified as not being the person in company of the deceased, boarding a yacht or sloop the morning they died.
A fair trial can't follow a Jury considering its verdict without knowing that important witnesses excluded the defendant as being the last person seen with a deceased, because for all else it means that the last person seen with the deceased was not the person charged with the crime. It's a full alibi, complete and full and something which the Jury had to hear, that it wasn't Scott last seen with the dead couple prior to their disappearance.
So no, it doesn't matter if the lawyers knew of the evidence or not, what matters is that evidence which showed Scott not to be the last man in the company of the couple before they disappeared.

For the deniers of Robin Bain's guilt - a similar case.

The hate-siters often fell about laughing, spitting out false teeth, laughing so hard that their wigs fell off, amused beyond reason of the explanation from the evidence that after killing his family Robin, washed and changed his clothes. Indeed they said he was praying in the lounge when he was shot.

Of course the finding of high-speed spatter going the wrong way on his right shoe put paid to that idea. The spatter was travelling  left to right, and not the required right to left that it needed to have been from his own wound. There was another big problem because had been praying in the manner described as being his custom, the top of his  feet and therefore tops of his shoes would have been tucked under him and blood travelling in any direction not able to spatter across his shoes.

Well, if he wasn't praying in the fashion described, apart from whispering a few words as he lent his left temple against the rifle, then he certainly wouldn't have washed in any fashion and changed his clothes. This despite trousers being found in his van with fresh blood on them. Nobody, if you listened to a hate-siter would clean up, change clothes after committing murder and before suiciding, the very idea would be preposterous. Yes, it would be if you didn't comprehend the evidence against  Robin and his unsound mind. He had 2 daughters both of whom had spoken to others of their fathers 'prevailence' upon them for sex from a very young age. We know of the problems Stephen was having, the sexual overtones of those and the anecdotal links to a fractured child-hood that may have lent toward that. We know that Robin saw limited scope left in his career as a teacher, his behaviour deteriorating to the point he was seen as needing to have help. Things at home were no better, he was excluded, left out of plans to redevelop the family home, a sharp tightening in the attitude of his wife toward him. Public recognition that one daughter had taken to prostituting herself and the younger son in conflict with the law, himself forced to sleep in his caravan far from the marital bed and his daughters.

Today is reported that a nz man living in England, Mark Barrett 48, having killed his wife in a stabbing frenzy, washed himself and dressed, even cleaned the knife before suiciding, giving an example as documented in many cases worldwide of a ritual cleansing, following a 'phsyical' cleansing before suicide. The problems Mark Barrett's perceived himself to be having were daunting but limited in his mind to a single figure, his partner Rosie Mayer. Robin Bain, looking at the anecdotal evidence, had problems in every area of his life, work, with his wife, his two daughters (one reported as preparing to lay a complaint against him,) a son at odds with the law in a disturbing way. Looking at the attempt of 'cleansing' that besets some troubled souls, Robin's was advanced on all fronts.

Considering the likelihood that his daughters were not simply being mischievous for some odd reason in their claims against him, then he was facing prison, ostracisation in his own community. It is said that he was a 'devout' man and one can assume that he could easily have considered that there were things he needed to hide from his God, clean up or put right in some way. He may have considered that he had let 'God' down, and like many perpetrators seen his victims as the 'true' cause of that. Overwhelming his life was distorted and he needed to distance himself from a life gone wrong, perhaps turn back the clock to the time when things had been 'normal' before things and people had gone bad. Robin was in a bad place, somewhere that made him feel 'dirty.'

But what could he put right? Nothing if he had a rational mind, other than to seek help. Seeking help though would have not brought relief from that which he couldn't bear, wouldn't resolve the relentless turmoil his life had become. Young Stephen is thought to have fought for his life, the reality is that probably out of pure fear he did, however his first wound was determined as going to be fatal.  But it was Laniet who the evidence suggests might have been deliberately wounded and later finished off who was apparently subjected to a less than 'clean or efficient' death. A pillow put over her head for the final shot, as her killer slowly found his anger and disgust sated. She whom there was evidence of being in a 'relationship' with her father that was going to be revealed to the police. Some of this is speculation of course, though based on compelling evidence in every aspect.

What Mark Barrett saw as needing to be put right was in context of a new relationship, what Robin saw as failed and stalled in his life was a complete marriage, place in the Community, and an aborted relationship with those his duty had been to protect. What both men shared was the need to wash and dress before arresting their own torment that had not been vanquished by the spilling of the blood of those they 'loved.'

The way they're killing Scott Watson at xmas.

The Minister of Justice Simon Power said that Scott Watson would finally know the answer to his 3 year old application for Justice under the Crimes Act by Election Day, 4 days from now.
But there's a problem. After 3 years the lawyer appointed to investigate the application appears to have decided that there was no 'new' evidence to support the claim. But hold on, she seems to have overlooked evidence of witnesses confirming that their original id of Scott was incorrect. What a torrid 3 years it must have been for her, pretending to be doing nothing while actually doing nothing.
So Scott won't know by Election time his fate, instead he'll continue to endure the slow death of false imprisonment.
Just a minute. It seems Scott's lawyer Greg King, has pointed out to the investigating lawyer, and the Minister, that there is in fact 'new' evidence, to go with the other 'old' evidence that shows Scott is innocent. But the Minister can't make a decision on the basis of common sense, or refer to a Court, because he needs to consider it at length. In fact right until he leaves office and the file becomes the property of another Minister.
This is how Scott Watson is killed.
He is denied his rights while timely haste is denied him in his prison cell.
So do you and me deny him, if but for a minute we look away.

A dribbling hate-siter called bj.

What an unfortunate choice of name for the internet.

Anyway although the reaction to the news that an eminent jurist has been appointed to review David Bain's compensation claim has been fairly muted compared to earlier extremes it seems some of the hate-site members are beside themselves with rage. Thus, with frustration that their campaign is in tatters, that members have left in their droves leaving others facing 100s of charges and ongoing inquiries into allegations of threats, defamatory harassment, jury harassment and so forth this sick soul reverts to type - lies.

and the death certificate for Robin Bain says 'murdered' not 'suicide'.


Quotewelshdude (304 ) 6:07 pm, Sat 19 Nov #34

This former and discredited claim was once a rousing point for the demented few. Any reasonable person would realise that a death certificate isn't proof of murder in any situation, particularly not when no one has been convicted of the self-inflicted death of the family murderer Robin Bain. However, the truth is that the death certificate states benignly that Robin died as the result of a gun shot wound. So when they have nothing they invent things. Of course invention isn't proof of anything other than frustration of being unable to accept the truth. However, as I have written before, the persecution David Bain has faced is likely to be a contributing factor in determining what any compensation amount may be. One of the results of David's false imprisonment on biased, and in other cases with held evidence, was an actual Miscarriage of Justice that has already been ruled by the Privy Council. Not withstanding that, as reported in the foregoing blog, the persecution continued into the 2nd trial and after - particularly on Trade Me where the publishers allowed all manner of lies to be published in what were often Contempt of Court situations. David Bain may yet have the final word on that, or in fact some other judicial authority if, as I anticipate, the whole spectrum of what constituted the way the law and the internet was misused by idiots such as above to harass with lies and abuse David Bain as an enduring Miscarriage of Justice was weighed against him.

Interesting to note that it is only the hate-siters that sought to avoid the compensation inquiry, only they that are afraid of what the results might be. Bain's lawyer, the Queens Counsel Michael Reed, has expressed his confidence leading into this inquiry by someone who has been described as a 'star' of the legal system. Someone unlikely it can be presumed, to be anything other than disgusted that the media and dimwits with the unfortunate name of bj (welshdude) facilitated persecution by printing anything mindless idiots could think of even when the trial was under way.

Another blow against the hate-siters: Compensation claim to be considered.

The news broke yesterday that David Bain's compensation bid is set to be weighed by a retired Canadian Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ian Binnie. There are two broad aspects of the claim wrongful conviction and imprisonment, of course in a murder case one could not exist without the other.

Justice Minister Simon Power made the press release and from at least 2 of the things he mentioned it strongly appears that he sees the appointment of an overseas Judge 'in attempting to resolve Mr Bain's claim for compensation and a step toward achieving finality in the case.' I think this is a compromise decision between the Government and Bain from which both can expect the correct outcome. David Bain has experienced an extraordinary denial of his basic and constitutional rights and I'd suggest that the Government were fully mindful that the very essence of Cabinet's powers in cases of Miscarriages of Justice were on the line to be tested and likely to found wanting in this most unusual case where the highest Court had already ruled that David had been the subject of an 'actual' MOJ.

Simon Power was careful to point out that the decision had been made 'after consultation with Mr Bain's lawyers.' Also relating that in March last year the Minister had ordered his staff to work 'with Bains lawyers to devise a workable process for the assessment of the claim.' I expect the Minister was no less mindful that any other nzer that the case for compensation is never going to depart until it is satisfied  by a payout.

Broadly speaking there are a range of issues starting from the failure to investigate the motive Robin Bain had to kill his family, to fully comprehend the significant evidence that showed Robin as the killer at the outset, the untimely haste to charge somebody, the withheld evidence and so forth. But that goes further because after the Privy Council decision at the 2nd Trial there was further evidence of efforts to continue the MOJ by the Police. 5 in particular that I can think of now:
1/The evidence of Jones, describing a scientific impossibility as to the colour of blood under a poli-light.
2/The evidence of Jones, describing that skin under deflating pressure rather than flattened sharpened in detail.
3/The lifting of material from the Victorian Scientific Institute by NZ Police under the false 'pretence' of having a Court Order to do so.
4/The bizarre claim by a self-appointed linguist expert as to the contents of the 111 emergency call, something else totally discredited now.
5/The failure by the authorities to stop the activities of hate-sites and their patrons before, during and after the trial endeavouring to influence the public and potentially the Jury with lies about David, including alleged confessions and other pure fantasy from embittered people intent of perverting the course of Justice.

So there is a distinction. The Privy Council ruling that there had been a MOJ, then clear evidence of it continuing until David was acquitted, and in fact after as the record now shows with hate-sites claiming to have confessions, secret evidence and so forth - all of this contributes to the picture of what David Bain endured and for which he now claims for as wrongful conviction and imprisonment. All the consequences are relevant, I think that is something that Minister has taken advice on and determined, while not  a particularly 'rare' case, one nevertheless that has endured the full gambit of the agencies working under the authority of the state to verily set out to destroy an innocent man with all at it's disposal - lawful and unlawful, and being prepared to look away when something should have been done as a rabid pack of persecutors invaded cyber-space in a way that I doubt we will ever see again.

But enough on the hate for now, Justice has prevailed where good men and women feared at first to tread.         

Kent Parker sings - 'Dont cry for me Argentina.'

Well not quite. But judging by his latest outburst he is tearful and feeling very, very sorry himself. How touching. I heard about his latest 'woe is me' lament and somebody sent it to me this morning. It's already on the internet - so I'll publish it here and follow with some comments for those that can't be bothered going looking or who don't want to visit a hate-site.

Defending the Deceased



I am defending the reputation of a deceased person, Robin Bain, who, in the Bain murder retrial of 2009 was not able to defend himself, and yet had various spurious and opportunistic accusations thrown against him with very little evidence to back them up. I can safely say that I speak on behalf of a number of Justice For Robin Bain (JFRB) members in this respect. It appears that dead people have few rights and that people can say whatever they like about us when we are dead. As far as I know I do not need anyone's permission to represent a dead person; not their family or anyone else; and I can assure you that I do not have any weird beliefs about communicating with people "on the other side". I do this because I want to and because in a democratic society such as ours, I am able to. The number of people who still belong to and actively participate in counterspin and the Justice for Robin Bain group, and their stature and reputations indicate that this is a cause worth pursuing.






The defamation suit that has been served on me, Vic and by proxy, 16 other members of the JFRB group, gives us a distinct venue in which to apply this political advocacy. Without it we would be void of a cause. There are two sides to every argument, and by dint of circumstance, Robin's side of the argument was sorely lacking until Bryan Bruce's incisive documentary The Case Against Robin Bain, was aired in July 2010. It is readily apparent that, despite the action we have taken in response to Karam's defamation suit, he remains keen to press his case, therefore any trial that might ensue from this insistence may provide the crucial opportunity to publicly air the evidence and exonerate Robin Bain. At the same time we may get some case law in place with respect to political discussions on the internet. Since this country is in the top three nations in the world for social liberties I am not expecting any draconian judgments in any great hurry and the process may take some time yet. As it stands we have removed from public exposure all comments cited in Karam's claim except for half or dozen or so.






Politics is full of finger pointing, name calling, allegations and accusations. There are limits, but leeway has to be allowed for healthy and lively democratic expression and involvement, whether by politicians, business people or the general public. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire. Don't pretend that you are mortally offended by other people's opposition to your public standing. Ultimately it will be seen for what it is and you will lose your electorate as a result. Karam's attempt to silence the JFRB group I see as an attempt to prevent his followers from seeing the other side of the story, an action which I believe is entirely undemocratic and which, unless this country suddenly plummets into an elite-centered totalitarianism after the upcoming election, does not carry much credibility. In terms of the reality of the society that we live in on 13 November 2011, it is improper and vexatious (yes, that is an opinion).






Perhaps the best thing that could have happened for Robin Bain is that Karam, the person who publicly vilified him after he was no longer able to defend himself, sued the people who countered his (Karam's) arguments and thus provided the occasion for Robin to finally be vindicated. By suing us he has ensured that opposition to his ideas will not die and he has made himself vulnerable to the Streisand Effect.

Obviously, Parker thinks he is defending a dead person. In what Court, Jurisdiction and on what authority he is doing this 'defending' is hard to establish but he hints that it may well be in his own trial on defamation charges. Unfortunately Kent remains struggling to get the picture that his defamation trial isn't about Robin Bain but rather about defamatory statements Parker made and encouraged others to make about one person in particular, Joe Karam. Simply, Kent can't understand that the Courts are not a soap box from which he can rave about his misconceptions, weep, fall down even, and claim that he was defaming because he was defending a dead man.

On that point Parker continues to be unable to absorb that you don't defend a dead person by defaming a live person. Nor do you defend a dead person by encouraging and taking part in a hate-campaign and you certainly do not defend a dead person by ignoring the results of a trial. A trial in which it was necessary for the Crown to defend the dead person in order to prove that a live person was the perpetrator and not the dead man that had an abundance of forensic proof pointing to his guilt.

Just looking at that guilt for a moment, and the defamatory allegation that Karam ignored the truth in pursuit of victory of his own will, none of the evidence against Robin Bain pointing to his guilt was able to be set aside. That wasn't the 'fault' of karam or anybody else. Forensic proof is exactly what it is, in this case bruised and bloody hands of Robin Bain, a full bladder, no underwear, no porridge on the stove, no shielding of blood spatter from his self-inflicted wound, no scientific explanation of how his dna was sucked into the rifle barell, how an upward trajectory shot was achieved into his head - none of this, despite what Kent might hopefully wish others to believe, had anything at all to do with Karam. That material was gathered from the suicide scene by the police years before Karam came into the picture. Even the allegations of incest against Robin Bain  were made within days of his death. So too reports of his obvious health and behaviour issues. In short, for Parker to believe he may have an 'honest belief' defence he would have to first convince the Court of matters which had already been determined by a Jury, where he would fail on that is that there is firstly the difficulty of revisiting something already confirmed by a Jury, and secondly that even if there were possibly anything arising from the defamatory allegations against Karam  they cannot be countered by already established facts.

Parker continues to misunderstand his role as a publisher, his perceptions on what truth is, and fails to comprehend that our society and law doesn't dismiss lightly law-breaking and excuses for it that imply the victim of the law breaking deserves what has befallen them. Above he says that without the defamation charges that his group 'would be void of a cause,' another demonstration that fails to recognise that any party can have a cause but the minute they begin to lie about their countrymen and women, prey on them with stalking and hate campaigns their 'cause' his already voided because it is illegal. In the same paragraph, desperate Dan Parker, cites as evidence a Television show of untested and rejected pondering that failed to absorb the breadth of evidence against Robin Bain.

Parker continues with 'he (Karam) remains keen to press his case.' Perhaps finally realising that the case will not go away however much Parker squeals and publicly expresses his sorrow for himself. As an outsider I note that he made no noises other than encouraging ones, when his 'follower's stalked and threatened other nzers and used message boards such as Trade Me to spread their hate message and lies. Of course, Trade Me, are also facing defamation charges for failing to stop Parker's crew from publishing defamatory material on TM boards. Use of the words 'followers' is interesting. Parker talks about Karam's 'followers' being blocked from the truth by Karams act of suing. This statement says more about Parker, and his delusional mind, than it does about Karam.

I don't know of Karam having any 'followers' he doesn't have a website, or an organisation such as that of Parker, for all intents and purposes he holds his own counsel. Again Parker misreads that people form an opinion of their own without being 'followers.' He mistakes that a few, not so bright individuals, flocked to Parker's website and stayed for a while, as others retired quickly - realising that Parker's site and campaign was about himself and defamation, stalking and threats were seen as 'collateral' of his campaign. Personally, I didn't form an opinion about the Bain case from reading hate-site messages and other unsubstantiated nonsense, I was always primarily interested in the forensics above. The upward trajectory shot initially, the erroneous claims that David wasn't strip searched with intimate tests being taken and therefore was not a suspect, that Robin didn't have bruised and bloody hands and so it went on, all of that was answered by the evidence - not as Parker would try to manipulate as being from Karam.

Parker says 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.' His use of the word fire rather than the traditional word 'kitchen' is more of his threatening under tone. However, the fact remains that it is obvious that Parker cannot stand the heat in his own kitchen and now blubbers for sympathy, interposing threats and sweeping self rightous statements.

Too late Kent, your kitchen might be on fire but I'm sure Joe Karam's is fully air-conditioned and cool. Try to sweat it out bro, or take my advice offered over a year ago - close up your hate-site and either do a runner or go cap in hand to the man you victimised - while your at it consider what other legal action might becoming your way.

Footnote: Must note here the single piece of evidence that proved Robin as the killer, and David as innocent : the high speed blood splatter going the 'wrong' way found on Robin's shoe, and which was therefore occluded from having come from his own wound. The evidence that put him on the scene of the other killings, as it is accepted all the killings, including Robin's suicide, were carried out by one person using the same rifle in each. Setting aside all else that might seem complicated, this one piece of evidence shows why David should never have been charged and points to another reason why Parker's campaign of hate has failed.