I wonder how the sisters will twist this one. I think the Minister will be wishing she didn't have Mr Fisher's phone number on speed dial.
With today's press release confirming the unsurprising news that Dr Dempster the Crown Pathologist in the Bain case has revealed that there were no marks by way of cuts or scratches on the thumb of Robin Bain which might explain the photograph taken on the morning of the murder suicides there must be much consternation in the camp of the hate-siters. Publicly some of them are trying to disregard the significance of what the police Deputy Commissioner Burgess told the public that they might have been scratches resulting from home 'handyman' repairs is utterly wrong.
When Burgess made that statement, smug at it seemed to be, it was difficult not to think that he was perhaps amused by what he was saying - even testing the waters of public gullibility. Whichever the case those that 'needed' to believe went hook, line, sinker, boat and car trailer for it. There was an awful lot of swallowing happening among Kent's people - well more than usual. Fairly easy prediction that Mr Dempster had thoroughly done his job, a man with years of experience, concerned with recording every detail that might be later used by the Coroner or else where. A man doing his job.
It has always struck a note of discord for some followers of the Bain case as to why Dempster was refused entry to the house for hours while a train load of inexperienced elephants tramped through. I've written before of the dismay of learning that probably the most experienced investigator into homicide or suicide in Dunedin at the time was kept from the scene while others walked through, unmindful of blood or moving things about. In fact during the trial we heard of the magazine in the lounge being moved about, the body moved and so on. How easy was it for two fine marks to be accidentally erased, very easy. How easy was it to in fact miss them, well a whole country did as the photo emerged into the public domain. At least for many years it was missed by experienced investigators, scientists, pathologists and lawyers alike.
Unfortunately, apart from the Compensation Claim by David Bain, and possibly the on going inquiry as to how Royal Prerogative Powers have 'stepped' outside the rules of Natural Justice and Due process, this fact of Dempster not having had the opportunity to 'solve' the murder-suicide before amateurs entered the scene is water under the bridge to all but the hate-siters and heavy investors into David's 'guilt' and persecution. Yet it is of National significance - it was where things went wrong in a case that has dominated interest for years.
I noted in the panicked voices that it was said that the marks on Robin's thumbs were not parallel. That didn't surprise me because of the nature of the human body, skin moving under pressure and so forth. The very reason that the finger print expert Jones gave the most blatantly corrupt evidence of all when he claimed that finger print ridges were heightened under pressure rather than flattened and distorted. But I freely admit that I didn't know there might be a more significant reason for the apparent 'lack' of uniformity between the two lines - or not being parallel as some sisters chortled - that the magazine itself on the surfaces of the loading chamber were not parallel, either because of wear or some accident. In fact distorted to the point of perhaps being responsible for many of the mis-feeds viewers saw on the 3 Degrees Show and of which evidence was found at Every Street.
Here follow two photos (in the following post) that show the two lines on Robin's thumb were unique to his loading a particular magazine - the one he used to load the rifle with which he killed himself. They are as significant as anything else in the Bain case because the lines don't compare with any magazine but the particular one Robin loaded before his death.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Showing why Robin Bain is guilty - more to come..
In fact
the non-parallelism of the magazine exactly matches the non-parallelism
of the marks…..
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Scott Watson RPOM Report - Some general impressions.
First of all in this report in response to an Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy made by Scott Watson to the Crown is the number of 'blanked' out names. The report is a now made public and it is difficult not to notice how many of the details of witnesses, or potential witnesses, are kept secret, fairly unprecedented in a society that takes pride in 'open Justice.'
Of course the most 'secrecy' appears to surround the evidence and recantations of prison inmates, in particular the troubled prisoner 'Secret Witness A.' It is clear that the author of the report Kristy McDonald QC had an extreme difficulty in 'stepping back' to consider this and other evidence in an overall context of the case against Watson. I must note that SWA has made contradictory statements to the point that he must be considered totally unreliable. It can't be forgotten that SWA was an important Crown Witness who put a 'confession' into the mouth of Scott Watson, a confession that must have had an impact on Watson's Jury. Now however SWA will no longer co-operate with The Crown, who despite that fact still 'stand by their man.' McDonald QC interestingly enough, saw her mandate as only able to consider new and fresh evidence, accordingly it would be appear to the uninitiated that it is new evidence that SWA no longer stands by his earlier evidence or indeed by The Crown. By the record produced of the contact attempts by Ms Mc Donald it is revealed that the troubled SWA still maintains a lifestyle as a criminal and perhaps unfortunately for him, the same mental health problems. Reading some of the claims by SWA, my opinion is that they are bizarre and untruthful and that he no longer is willing to support them is in itself 'fresh' evidence favouring Watson. If the 'confession' to SWA is a cornerstone of upholding the conviction of Watson The Crown case is obviously in serious trouble, was from the outset when police needed to rely on evidence from prison inmates, this one in particular having mental health issues.
Moving onto another 'cornerstone' of the evidence against Watson is the 'identification' of him the morning of the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. Reading the report the identification is frankly a mess, yet Ms McDonald dutifully holds it together. She in fact says that neither Guy Wallace or Roz McNeilly properly identified Watson and that was put to the Jury at the Trial by the Defence. She observes, on one issue forwarded by Watson, that both McNeilly and Wallace would not have identified, by their own admission now, Watson as the person the Jury were asked by the Crown to believe was Watson drinking in the bar that night, and later 'seen' leaving the wharf with the deceased couple. She says that the defence case was put to the Jury of non identification and that 'dock identification' of Watson that the witnesses now say they couldn't have made is unreliable. Hold on folks, the Jury obviously accepted the identification of Watson, clouded as it was, and having heard either witness tell them that Watson wasn't the person about whom they were giving evidence would have resulted in a dramatic and telling point in their deliberations, one that can't be escaped. It needs to also be noted that Ms McNeilly is now able to say that the person she served in the bar that night had no missing fingers, whereas Watson does. Effectively she would now be able to say Watson wasn't the 'mystery' man and that the 'mystery' man had no fingers missing, in fact able to give a good description of his hands.
In all fairness to The Crown they had identification problems, they had/have credibility problems with their witnesses. On that point there are witnesses whose evidence was 'allowed' as to the propensity of Watson to 'talk about' killing people, women in particular. 'Propensity evidence', also that of 'prisoners' and unreliable identification are all hallmarks of a weak prosecution, one which is striving to fill the gaps. In this case despite the 'propensity evidence' at least one witness was a former girlfriend of Watson whom apparently had nothing to offer in support of his propensity to murder, let alone to be violent.
A few weeks ago I wrote on the interactive blog Kiwi Blog that both the Minster of Justice and Ms McDonald had effectively hung their hats on the dna evidence of 2 hairs 'found' on a blanket taken from Watson's boat The Blade. The report reveals that the 2 hairs were no actually found on 2 earlier ESR searches rather than a single previous search that I mistakenly observed. So 2 searches and no 2 hairs. What I've now read is that our own Court of Appeal has commented on those 2 hairs and the controversy surrounding them in that they were part of a 'contaminated' mix pointed out by a commentator here a couple of days ago on the previous Watson thread. The COA refers to the 'matched' DNA profile as ' not explained by the dna mixed hairs.' On the surface a 'commanding' observation until viewed with a more neutral and open mind that allows the equal 'commanding'' observation that the importance of the 2 hairs (more about them shortly) is not explained by the 'contaminated' hair. If the first does not explain the second, then the second can not explain the first and that falls in favour of reasonable doubt about the importance of the evidence, the sanctity of it, and also the passage by which it travelled to that blanket only to be overlooked twice.
So as to those 2 crucial hairs one cannot help but note the language, which, on this point, Kristy McDonald is guarded - she uses the term 'strongly supported.' Not conclusive, without doubt, beyond doubt or absolutely proven. She relies on 'strongly supported.' On each and every turn Kristy McDonald avoids the 'overall' and highly visible picture between the lines of her report - as late Lord Diplock of the Privy Council has observed... “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.'
If Watson legal rights have indeed ended, and if the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is so lifeless and blind then it can be said that a man unidentified by critical Crown witnesses as being in the company of Hope and Smart, whose ability to be a 'boy friend' of at least one woman who was unable to confirm is propensity to violence, let alone murder, whose confession was 'sung loud' by a crippled minded prisoner who is reported to have since said the police didn't look after him, and whom now abandons his master, is held in prison on the evidence of 2 mysteriously appearing hairs, uncontaminated by their contaminated environment.
Of course the most 'secrecy' appears to surround the evidence and recantations of prison inmates, in particular the troubled prisoner 'Secret Witness A.' It is clear that the author of the report Kristy McDonald QC had an extreme difficulty in 'stepping back' to consider this and other evidence in an overall context of the case against Watson. I must note that SWA has made contradictory statements to the point that he must be considered totally unreliable. It can't be forgotten that SWA was an important Crown Witness who put a 'confession' into the mouth of Scott Watson, a confession that must have had an impact on Watson's Jury. Now however SWA will no longer co-operate with The Crown, who despite that fact still 'stand by their man.' McDonald QC interestingly enough, saw her mandate as only able to consider new and fresh evidence, accordingly it would be appear to the uninitiated that it is new evidence that SWA no longer stands by his earlier evidence or indeed by The Crown. By the record produced of the contact attempts by Ms Mc Donald it is revealed that the troubled SWA still maintains a lifestyle as a criminal and perhaps unfortunately for him, the same mental health problems. Reading some of the claims by SWA, my opinion is that they are bizarre and untruthful and that he no longer is willing to support them is in itself 'fresh' evidence favouring Watson. If the 'confession' to SWA is a cornerstone of upholding the conviction of Watson The Crown case is obviously in serious trouble, was from the outset when police needed to rely on evidence from prison inmates, this one in particular having mental health issues.
Moving onto another 'cornerstone' of the evidence against Watson is the 'identification' of him the morning of the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. Reading the report the identification is frankly a mess, yet Ms McDonald dutifully holds it together. She in fact says that neither Guy Wallace or Roz McNeilly properly identified Watson and that was put to the Jury at the Trial by the Defence. She observes, on one issue forwarded by Watson, that both McNeilly and Wallace would not have identified, by their own admission now, Watson as the person the Jury were asked by the Crown to believe was Watson drinking in the bar that night, and later 'seen' leaving the wharf with the deceased couple. She says that the defence case was put to the Jury of non identification and that 'dock identification' of Watson that the witnesses now say they couldn't have made is unreliable. Hold on folks, the Jury obviously accepted the identification of Watson, clouded as it was, and having heard either witness tell them that Watson wasn't the person about whom they were giving evidence would have resulted in a dramatic and telling point in their deliberations, one that can't be escaped. It needs to also be noted that Ms McNeilly is now able to say that the person she served in the bar that night had no missing fingers, whereas Watson does. Effectively she would now be able to say Watson wasn't the 'mystery' man and that the 'mystery' man had no fingers missing, in fact able to give a good description of his hands.
In all fairness to The Crown they had identification problems, they had/have credibility problems with their witnesses. On that point there are witnesses whose evidence was 'allowed' as to the propensity of Watson to 'talk about' killing people, women in particular. 'Propensity evidence', also that of 'prisoners' and unreliable identification are all hallmarks of a weak prosecution, one which is striving to fill the gaps. In this case despite the 'propensity evidence' at least one witness was a former girlfriend of Watson whom apparently had nothing to offer in support of his propensity to murder, let alone to be violent.
A few weeks ago I wrote on the interactive blog Kiwi Blog that both the Minster of Justice and Ms McDonald had effectively hung their hats on the dna evidence of 2 hairs 'found' on a blanket taken from Watson's boat The Blade. The report reveals that the 2 hairs were no actually found on 2 earlier ESR searches rather than a single previous search that I mistakenly observed. So 2 searches and no 2 hairs. What I've now read is that our own Court of Appeal has commented on those 2 hairs and the controversy surrounding them in that they were part of a 'contaminated' mix pointed out by a commentator here a couple of days ago on the previous Watson thread. The COA refers to the 'matched' DNA profile as ' not explained by the dna mixed hairs.' On the surface a 'commanding' observation until viewed with a more neutral and open mind that allows the equal 'commanding'' observation that the importance of the 2 hairs (more about them shortly) is not explained by the 'contaminated' hair. If the first does not explain the second, then the second can not explain the first and that falls in favour of reasonable doubt about the importance of the evidence, the sanctity of it, and also the passage by which it travelled to that blanket only to be overlooked twice.
So as to those 2 crucial hairs one cannot help but note the language, which, on this point, Kristy McDonald is guarded - she uses the term 'strongly supported.' Not conclusive, without doubt, beyond doubt or absolutely proven. She relies on 'strongly supported.' On each and every turn Kristy McDonald avoids the 'overall' and highly visible picture between the lines of her report - as late Lord Diplock of the Privy Council has observed... “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.'
If Watson legal rights have indeed ended, and if the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is so lifeless and blind then it can be said that a man unidentified by critical Crown witnesses as being in the company of Hope and Smart, whose ability to be a 'boy friend' of at least one woman who was unable to confirm is propensity to violence, let alone murder, whose confession was 'sung loud' by a crippled minded prisoner who is reported to have since said the police didn't look after him, and whom now abandons his master, is held in prison on the evidence of 2 mysteriously appearing hairs, uncontaminated by their contaminated environment.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Scott Watson: What is Collins and Kristy McDonald's answer to this?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post
"Scott
Watson and being Judith.":
Probability in nDNA is based on matching 9 of 13 loci in one chromosome then calculating the number of searches needed to find another person on a population the same 9 of 13 matching loci. For instance,if you start with 65,000 people and do a pairwise match of all of them, you are actually making over 2 billion separate comparisons (65,000 * 64,999/2)or a probability 2 billion to 1. If you aren’t just looking for a match on 9 specific loci, but rather on any 9 of 13 loci, then for each of those pairs of people there are over 700 different combinations that are being searched, so all told, you end up doing about 1.4 trillion searches!
The probability in the Sounds nDNA was given 28,000 to 1 or 28 thousand searches so given an unrelated population [female] of 2 million the number of matching locus was likely only 2-3 of 13 possible matches so in fact the DNA evidence is very weak as there would be several thousand females who would match at 2 loci. To find two unrelated people who matched at all 13 loci would be 114 trillion to 1 Only Identical Twins have identical nDNA though siblings can be identified and biological relationship to a parent identified because the number of locus likely to be the same is known but in forensic science DNA testing it is never to be assumed the sample and control are related as that eliminates the need to search multiple times. All the tests in the sounds testing proved was that the hair alleged to have been found on Blade was from Olivia OR Amelia Hope as the Mitochondrial DNA [mDNA]testing and they were both their mothers daughters. The mDNA was contaminated by foreign nDNA and as the same hairs were nDNA tested those tests contaminated as well. The usual source of hair contamination is a shared comb or hair brush. Given the control hairs were also contaminated it is very likely they had a common source, Olivia hair brush where the control samples were from and was delivered to the ESR lab about a half hour before the hairs were "found".
Okay, I don't know who anonymous is. But one thing I can tell is that he or she knows what they're talking about. I have previously read about the possibility of the 2 hairs belonging to either Olivia or her sister, also about the cross contamination by shared brush or comb. I know from evidence that the hairs were 'missed' on an earlier search but found on a subsequent search after 'samples' were delivered to the ESR lab. What I didn't know was the claim that the samples had so shortly been in the possession of the ESR when the hairs were 'found' on the blanket. I have read about the sample bag being 'split.' I'm going to ask a friend to apply under the OIC Act requesting the times relevant to the delivery of the samples and the 'new' blanket search.
I'll just touch on a few 'knowns' here, but Minister Collins and Ms McDonald QC have publicly stated after a recent review using the powers of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, that the 2 'hairs' are the bonding agent which holds 'together' the case against Watson. Both the Watson case and that of Pora share the same prosecutor. The Watson case, along with those of David Bain and Arthur Thomas share the common fact of critical 'evidence' being found on subsequent searches that was apparently missed earlier. Earlier on this blog a photo is produced of a yacht that could match the one that didn't 'exist' according to OIC of the Sounds Inquiry: Pope. Most of the country understands that both the description and identification of Watson have been recanted by the original witnesses, also that the evidence of the 'scratches' under the cabin hatch, the 'fresh' painting of The Blade, the 'complete' wiping down of The Blade subsequent to the disappearance of the couple have strong replies from those defending Watson. So strong in fact that the Minister appears to be forced to 'rely' on 2 hairs - which it can be argued 'appeared' just when police needed them and by sheer co-incidence just after they'd gathered more evidence that happens, as we see, to be the evidence which our Minister relies upon.
For those interested in reading about the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy try M Travis, May 1998 for RPOM in NZ. Here is one extract that our Minister and certainly not her 'advisor' McDonald appear to comprehend, firstly of the nature of the test of RPOM, how it is in fact reviewable and not just merely a opportunity of the Minister of the day to sweep a public safe guard under the carpet, treat it with contempt, nor the applicant or indeed public interest....
'In de Freitas v Benny [1976] (Court of Appeal in Trinidad), Lord Diplock observed that “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.” Christopher Gelber considered this a ruling that “the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was inherently extra-legal in nature and therefore not justiciable,” as did Lord Roskill in the G.C.H.Q. case [1985] A.C. 374. Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Crown’s ability to pardon displays the necessary characteristics of a true prerogative; yet there are those like Watkins L.J. who reject the test of justiciability “in favour of an examination of the court’s capacity to weigh the competing issues of principle in each case.” Watkins considered the courts to be competent enough to review the prerogative of mercy.'
Probability in nDNA is based on matching 9 of 13 loci in one chromosome then calculating the number of searches needed to find another person on a population the same 9 of 13 matching loci. For instance,if you start with 65,000 people and do a pairwise match of all of them, you are actually making over 2 billion separate comparisons (65,000 * 64,999/2)or a probability 2 billion to 1. If you aren’t just looking for a match on 9 specific loci, but rather on any 9 of 13 loci, then for each of those pairs of people there are over 700 different combinations that are being searched, so all told, you end up doing about 1.4 trillion searches!
The probability in the Sounds nDNA was given 28,000 to 1 or 28 thousand searches so given an unrelated population [female] of 2 million the number of matching locus was likely only 2-3 of 13 possible matches so in fact the DNA evidence is very weak as there would be several thousand females who would match at 2 loci. To find two unrelated people who matched at all 13 loci would be 114 trillion to 1 Only Identical Twins have identical nDNA though siblings can be identified and biological relationship to a parent identified because the number of locus likely to be the same is known but in forensic science DNA testing it is never to be assumed the sample and control are related as that eliminates the need to search multiple times. All the tests in the sounds testing proved was that the hair alleged to have been found on Blade was from Olivia OR Amelia Hope as the Mitochondrial DNA [mDNA]testing and they were both their mothers daughters. The mDNA was contaminated by foreign nDNA and as the same hairs were nDNA tested those tests contaminated as well. The usual source of hair contamination is a shared comb or hair brush. Given the control hairs were also contaminated it is very likely they had a common source, Olivia hair brush where the control samples were from and was delivered to the ESR lab about a half hour before the hairs were "found".
Okay, I don't know who anonymous is. But one thing I can tell is that he or she knows what they're talking about. I have previously read about the possibility of the 2 hairs belonging to either Olivia or her sister, also about the cross contamination by shared brush or comb. I know from evidence that the hairs were 'missed' on an earlier search but found on a subsequent search after 'samples' were delivered to the ESR lab. What I didn't know was the claim that the samples had so shortly been in the possession of the ESR when the hairs were 'found' on the blanket. I have read about the sample bag being 'split.' I'm going to ask a friend to apply under the OIC Act requesting the times relevant to the delivery of the samples and the 'new' blanket search.
I'll just touch on a few 'knowns' here, but Minister Collins and Ms McDonald QC have publicly stated after a recent review using the powers of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, that the 2 'hairs' are the bonding agent which holds 'together' the case against Watson. Both the Watson case and that of Pora share the same prosecutor. The Watson case, along with those of David Bain and Arthur Thomas share the common fact of critical 'evidence' being found on subsequent searches that was apparently missed earlier. Earlier on this blog a photo is produced of a yacht that could match the one that didn't 'exist' according to OIC of the Sounds Inquiry: Pope. Most of the country understands that both the description and identification of Watson have been recanted by the original witnesses, also that the evidence of the 'scratches' under the cabin hatch, the 'fresh' painting of The Blade, the 'complete' wiping down of The Blade subsequent to the disappearance of the couple have strong replies from those defending Watson. So strong in fact that the Minister appears to be forced to 'rely' on 2 hairs - which it can be argued 'appeared' just when police needed them and by sheer co-incidence just after they'd gathered more evidence that happens, as we see, to be the evidence which our Minister relies upon.
For those interested in reading about the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy try M Travis, May 1998 for RPOM in NZ. Here is one extract that our Minister and certainly not her 'advisor' McDonald appear to comprehend, firstly of the nature of the test of RPOM, how it is in fact reviewable and not just merely a opportunity of the Minister of the day to sweep a public safe guard under the carpet, treat it with contempt, nor the applicant or indeed public interest....
'In de Freitas v Benny [1976] (Court of Appeal in Trinidad), Lord Diplock observed that “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.” Christopher Gelber considered this a ruling that “the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was inherently extra-legal in nature and therefore not justiciable,” as did Lord Roskill in the G.C.H.Q. case [1985] A.C. 374. Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Crown’s ability to pardon displays the necessary characteristics of a true prerogative; yet there are those like Watkins L.J. who reject the test of justiciability “in favour of an examination of the court’s capacity to weigh the competing issues of principle in each case.” Watkins considered the courts to be competent enough to review the prerogative of mercy.'
Thursday, August 22, 2013
The test of Louise Nicholas.
Anyone that saw Louise on a recent show where she was welcomed to police headquarters in Wellington would have seen the sudden delight on her face when one of the reporters later told her that the Commissioner of Police Peter Marshall had referred to her as a friend of the police. I think Marshall's message was clear, that Louise had done the right think in pursuing her case against police for terrible events that happened to her in her teenage years, because it had caused police to look at themselves, resulted in an in-depth inquiry which resulted in some police being imprisoned and Louise's own case brought before the Courts.
She described that case as a victory to her, because she had prevailed in having the previous police officers and one serving member brought to task. That they were found not guilty didn't detract from what she had achieved - one small woman standing up for herself.
Last night on 3 Degrees we got to see her again, she is not the sort of person capable of 'hiding' her feelings and I think I saw the level of shock when it was revealed to her what had happened as the result of some police not doing their jobs properly, and others who did their job corruptly - resulting in Malcom Rewa the serial rapist, 'harvesting' more victims for over a decade after one of his first victims complained to the police and in fact identified him by name, after being told by a police man in Glen Innes, Auckland, that the woman needed to name the offender.
Louise rightly pointed out that those victims should be compensated, If there is a 'class' action case worth taking in New Zealand this is it and many will watch this story unfold, hopefully with Marshall playing a leading hand.
As an aside, it was interesting watching Louise answer the question about Pora's innocence. To me she certainly hesitated before affirming her belief that he was innocent. In that split second delay I think Louise showed what many might feel, where there is smoke there if fire to some extent - showing her conservative and cautious side. I think it also summed up a further disadvantage that Pora faces - his 'association' with Rewa, completely untrue as it is, naturally slips into the minds of some; that what is bad about Rewa, is also somehow 'bad' about Pora.
Considering that for a moment, and also I think the 'awkwardness' of the questions put to some of the 'guests' on last night's show to confirm the situation with Pora is the most pressing in this whole mess showed some clumsiness of thought. In my opinion none of those effected by the police actions and inactions is more pressing than the others, they share equal importance. While Pora needs to be let go, this very day also someone with the appropriate power should be putting in place at least an offer of remedy to all those victimised by Rewa and the police facilitation of that. It's time to act.
She described that case as a victory to her, because she had prevailed in having the previous police officers and one serving member brought to task. That they were found not guilty didn't detract from what she had achieved - one small woman standing up for herself.
Last night on 3 Degrees we got to see her again, she is not the sort of person capable of 'hiding' her feelings and I think I saw the level of shock when it was revealed to her what had happened as the result of some police not doing their jobs properly, and others who did their job corruptly - resulting in Malcom Rewa the serial rapist, 'harvesting' more victims for over a decade after one of his first victims complained to the police and in fact identified him by name, after being told by a police man in Glen Innes, Auckland, that the woman needed to name the offender.
Louise rightly pointed out that those victims should be compensated, If there is a 'class' action case worth taking in New Zealand this is it and many will watch this story unfold, hopefully with Marshall playing a leading hand.
As an aside, it was interesting watching Louise answer the question about Pora's innocence. To me she certainly hesitated before affirming her belief that he was innocent. In that split second delay I think Louise showed what many might feel, where there is smoke there if fire to some extent - showing her conservative and cautious side. I think it also summed up a further disadvantage that Pora faces - his 'association' with Rewa, completely untrue as it is, naturally slips into the minds of some; that what is bad about Rewa, is also somehow 'bad' about Pora.
Considering that for a moment, and also I think the 'awkwardness' of the questions put to some of the 'guests' on last night's show to confirm the situation with Pora is the most pressing in this whole mess showed some clumsiness of thought. In my opinion none of those effected by the police actions and inactions is more pressing than the others, they share equal importance. While Pora needs to be let go, this very day also someone with the appropriate power should be putting in place at least an offer of remedy to all those victimised by Rewa and the police facilitation of that. It's time to act.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
What's in store for Kenty and Counterspin now?
It's no secret that Kent's defence to the defamation charges he and Vic Purkess are facing is sinking in deep water. What is interesting to observe is the apparent associated panic that has set in, not only is Vic no longer a site administration but also recently Aunt Fanny is gone. It hasn't much been in focus to this point, but it's questionable where liability stops with the members of Counterspin and Justice for Robin Bain. Invariably, they have all been party to the defamatory attacks on Karam, it has been their 'work' for many years, in which they have 'shared' the commitment and costs, a combined effort by a group with clear intentions.
Of course there has been a united effort in attacking Karam by the hate-sites. Even in respect to the defence of those attacks members have pooled their resources and 'money.' It's has always been clear that it hasn't been just silly Kent attacking Karam and Bain, it's been the administrators, the members and the 'feeders' to the hate sites. So Vic and Aunt Fanny apparently attempt to 'divorce' themselves from the attack against Joe Karam as the defamation case nears. By no longer being administrators for the 2 hate-sites they apparently that it absolves them from blame for the dirty war they waged. Likewise, the vocal attackers, the contributors to the financial fund have also displayed liability when tested by what could be lost or gained by their activities. Yet I wonder why they think they can escape. The hate-sites have a common purpose, one shared by their members, financial contributors and 'feeders.' They are able to be observed over a long period as having a common cause.
I look forward to finding out what steps are available to Karam to satisfy any award the Court might make. This could involve an analysis of the Constitution of the two hate-sites, the administrators, advisors and in particular the 'contributors' to the 'fighting fund.' Some readers will recall an early proposition that donations to the 'fighting fund' could be seen as an investment. The administrators of the time presented that scenario, which in their minds, would result in good returns for those that fronted up with money. In other words a 'share holding' with the intention to profit. Everyone knows that shares can increase or decrease in value, yet if the 'investment' was an attempt to obscure civil or criminal offences, the penalties for which cannot be paid, then that 'instrument' may well be scrutinised for potential vicarious liability. There is another avenue that is also a potential opportunity for recovering the debt, examination under oath of the administrators of the time over their comments, calls for money and so on - what was raised and where it came from. Of course there have also been public claims by a now ex-administrator (one who has 'resigned' in the last few days) to fund the litigation and by implication 'bank roll' the case and therefore the dividends if the case met with success. Furthermore, there are others on record, the Remuera housewife, who have also made public pledges to fund the entire case, pledges it seems which were encouragement for site-members that they were 'on track' with their hate-site 'business.'
One hardly needs to point out that the pledges, calls to invest and so on were an effort to maintain defamatory attacks on Karam and others. One clear perspective is that if 'investors' expected to gain, as 'worldy and informed' they must have also expected they might also lose - but it is to what extent now which may well be the question. Just like the hate-siters have willingly accepted anything said against David and Karam, they have 'accepted' (it's in their writings, captured to file) that the hate campaign with all it's elements of lying, threats and so on is their responsibility or 'good work.' I think soon we will see the hollowness or fortitude of the hate-siters, the value of their words, and the value of their commitments - somehow I don't think it's going to be a pretty site. I believe, as they have always done, that they will display shallow character, prove that their word and pledges mean nothing - just as their hate-campaign has ultimately meant nothing good as it now flounders on the rocks waiting to sink. Look closely, and you'll see a steady line of rats deserting a 'noble' cause, scurrying back underground from where they and their evil came.
In certain quarters the defamation trial is seen as the prospect of a third trial for David Bain. How bewildered those poor souls are. The reality is that Kent and Vic will face cross examination if they give evidence. It would be material to that evidence for it to be determined who their 'contact's and 'feeders' were in order to establish a clearer picture of the attacks against Karam and who may have also been behind them. The same will apply to any witnesses they may chose to call. And who knows Karam himself might call some of the sisters, there are a few names I could recommend who might be able to inform the Court if Parker or Purkiss ever discouraged them from their defamation and other illegal activities. We might find out the links to van beynan, Weir, the members of Sensible Sentencing Trust who involved themselves in the campaign and who were willing to break the law both with false complaints and threats. Not quite the 'third trial' but a beaut nevertheless.
I look forward to a news 'scoop' from van beynan regarding the fate of Parker and Purkiss, or perhaps Kent or Vic's willingness to come clean about the 'feeders' and 'supporters' once the water reaches their feet.
Of course there has been a united effort in attacking Karam by the hate-sites. Even in respect to the defence of those attacks members have pooled their resources and 'money.' It's has always been clear that it hasn't been just silly Kent attacking Karam and Bain, it's been the administrators, the members and the 'feeders' to the hate sites. So Vic and Aunt Fanny apparently attempt to 'divorce' themselves from the attack against Joe Karam as the defamation case nears. By no longer being administrators for the 2 hate-sites they apparently that it absolves them from blame for the dirty war they waged. Likewise, the vocal attackers, the contributors to the financial fund have also displayed liability when tested by what could be lost or gained by their activities. Yet I wonder why they think they can escape. The hate-sites have a common purpose, one shared by their members, financial contributors and 'feeders.' They are able to be observed over a long period as having a common cause.
I look forward to finding out what steps are available to Karam to satisfy any award the Court might make. This could involve an analysis of the Constitution of the two hate-sites, the administrators, advisors and in particular the 'contributors' to the 'fighting fund.' Some readers will recall an early proposition that donations to the 'fighting fund' could be seen as an investment. The administrators of the time presented that scenario, which in their minds, would result in good returns for those that fronted up with money. In other words a 'share holding' with the intention to profit. Everyone knows that shares can increase or decrease in value, yet if the 'investment' was an attempt to obscure civil or criminal offences, the penalties for which cannot be paid, then that 'instrument' may well be scrutinised for potential vicarious liability. There is another avenue that is also a potential opportunity for recovering the debt, examination under oath of the administrators of the time over their comments, calls for money and so on - what was raised and where it came from. Of course there have also been public claims by a now ex-administrator (one who has 'resigned' in the last few days) to fund the litigation and by implication 'bank roll' the case and therefore the dividends if the case met with success. Furthermore, there are others on record, the Remuera housewife, who have also made public pledges to fund the entire case, pledges it seems which were encouragement for site-members that they were 'on track' with their hate-site 'business.'
One hardly needs to point out that the pledges, calls to invest and so on were an effort to maintain defamatory attacks on Karam and others. One clear perspective is that if 'investors' expected to gain, as 'worldy and informed' they must have also expected they might also lose - but it is to what extent now which may well be the question. Just like the hate-siters have willingly accepted anything said against David and Karam, they have 'accepted' (it's in their writings, captured to file) that the hate campaign with all it's elements of lying, threats and so on is their responsibility or 'good work.' I think soon we will see the hollowness or fortitude of the hate-siters, the value of their words, and the value of their commitments - somehow I don't think it's going to be a pretty site. I believe, as they have always done, that they will display shallow character, prove that their word and pledges mean nothing - just as their hate-campaign has ultimately meant nothing good as it now flounders on the rocks waiting to sink. Look closely, and you'll see a steady line of rats deserting a 'noble' cause, scurrying back underground from where they and their evil came.
In certain quarters the defamation trial is seen as the prospect of a third trial for David Bain. How bewildered those poor souls are. The reality is that Kent and Vic will face cross examination if they give evidence. It would be material to that evidence for it to be determined who their 'contact's and 'feeders' were in order to establish a clearer picture of the attacks against Karam and who may have also been behind them. The same will apply to any witnesses they may chose to call. And who knows Karam himself might call some of the sisters, there are a few names I could recommend who might be able to inform the Court if Parker or Purkiss ever discouraged them from their defamation and other illegal activities. We might find out the links to van beynan, Weir, the members of Sensible Sentencing Trust who involved themselves in the campaign and who were willing to break the law both with false complaints and threats. Not quite the 'third trial' but a beaut nevertheless.
I look forward to a news 'scoop' from van beynan regarding the fate of Parker and Purkiss, or perhaps Kent or Vic's willingness to come clean about the 'feeders' and 'supporters' once the water reaches their feet.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Is Kenty baby confused more than usual?
Kent's thought of a new name for himself a few weeks out from his defamation trial, he's now a 'self litigant' or an LG for short. Clearly he doesn't like the idea that he's one of the defendants in his own trial so he's thought up a new name. A secret source reveals that he's going to go the full hog with his new identity, buy a Davy Crocket hat to wear along with a pressed white shirt, a long black coat (borrowed from Aunt Fanny) and ask the Court to refer to him as Mr Litigant rather than as the defendant.
In his most recent writing he has revealed his subtle delight that Joe Karam is not going to be represented by Michael Reed, but rather by a 'very experienced' defamation expert Peter Mc Knight who 'however does not have his head around the issues anywhere like Reed does.' Clearly Kent thinks that not having Reed representing Karam is an advantage to himself in having a 'defamation expert' instead. I guess in Kent's world, being in the defendant in a defamation trial, it's an advantage if the plaintiff's lawyer is an expert in the field of defamation. Well, of course anything can happen in Kentsville, its a lonely bewildered mind that holds fort there. But I assume most folks wouldn't take much confidence in facing a highly experienced expert, unless of course you happened to be a LG. or more properly Mr Litigant.
Looking a little further into Kent's reasoning, and taking into account what his mad agents have been broadcasting, Kent the poor chappette still actually believes his trial is in fact the 3rd murder trial of David Bain and that he Kent, Mr Litigant, now has the advantage with Reed gone and McKnight stepping in who doesn't have his 'head around' things. I imagine Kents opening to The Court will be to point out that the 'defendant' isn't present only to be old that 'yes he is' that should get things off to a bewildering start. Particularly, when Kent asks 'well where is he.' 'He is you, Mr Parker along with Victor Purkiss.'
Poor Kent, I bet when he got the big 'D' at school marked on every subject he didn't realise it was 'D' for deluded, or maybe he did and thought that he was on track after all. It's going to be an interesting spectacle. Kent walking in his long black coat exposing his 'lily' white legs and little bobby socks and casting a confident eye over Peter McKnight, perhaps even snickering at his advantage or sneezing because he is allergic to coon skins and cussing Davy Crockett for his dress sense. Casting his eye about for David Bain and probably convincing himself that because David 'hadn't turned up' the Judge would order his arrest. Go Kenty....
In his most recent writing he has revealed his subtle delight that Joe Karam is not going to be represented by Michael Reed, but rather by a 'very experienced' defamation expert Peter Mc Knight who 'however does not have his head around the issues anywhere like Reed does.' Clearly Kent thinks that not having Reed representing Karam is an advantage to himself in having a 'defamation expert' instead. I guess in Kent's world, being in the defendant in a defamation trial, it's an advantage if the plaintiff's lawyer is an expert in the field of defamation. Well, of course anything can happen in Kentsville, its a lonely bewildered mind that holds fort there. But I assume most folks wouldn't take much confidence in facing a highly experienced expert, unless of course you happened to be a LG. or more properly Mr Litigant.
Looking a little further into Kent's reasoning, and taking into account what his mad agents have been broadcasting, Kent the poor chappette still actually believes his trial is in fact the 3rd murder trial of David Bain and that he Kent, Mr Litigant, now has the advantage with Reed gone and McKnight stepping in who doesn't have his 'head around' things. I imagine Kents opening to The Court will be to point out that the 'defendant' isn't present only to be old that 'yes he is' that should get things off to a bewildering start. Particularly, when Kent asks 'well where is he.' 'He is you, Mr Parker along with Victor Purkiss.'
Poor Kent, I bet when he got the big 'D' at school marked on every subject he didn't realise it was 'D' for deluded, or maybe he did and thought that he was on track after all. It's going to be an interesting spectacle. Kent walking in his long black coat exposing his 'lily' white legs and little bobby socks and casting a confident eye over Peter McKnight, perhaps even snickering at his advantage or sneezing because he is allergic to coon skins and cussing Davy Crockett for his dress sense. Casting his eye about for David Bain and probably convincing himself that because David 'hadn't turned up' the Judge would order his arrest. Go Kenty....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)