Poirot's question of who are they.

As providence should intervene, it was fortunate that I did not answer Poirot's question this morning, having reflected upon it today and following some wise counsel from some friends I will not reveal the details which I have received, and which I believe answers Poirots question of: who are they? (the hate-siters.)

So taking some generally held information, from particular people mostly from Trade Me, but also many months ago from Counterspin when I provided some of the details of Jury stalking that was on their boards earlier. Of course it was Vic Purkiss providing a 'trust me' it's true about the alleged Juror's letter to The Press. I use the word 'alleged' deliberately because the letter hasn't been authenticated to any official degree and of course one must hold reservations about anything claimed by The Press in terms of the Bain trial because of the van beynan, 'opinion' piece and his harassment of at least one juror. But on the face of it I believe Purkiss was being truthful with his 'trust me,' it appears he clearly knows a Juror. A relationship which Counterspin would be keen to cultivate if it assisted their lost cause in anyway. Apart from that Counterspin, hate-siters and a few associates have treated the Christchurch Jury in a way which I believe is provable Contempt of Court. Those words, 'Contempt of Court' apply equally to the current distribution of the MS. As I believe these matters are, or will be, investigated I will leave them alone in any detail apart from taking from this part of the answer to Poirot's question.

'These people' as we see are lawbreakers, self justified by their interpretation of defeating evil in the World, willing to ignore Court orders, to stalk Jurors, in fact probably willing to do anything. But I also think they may be quite a diverse bunch in terms of having some 'members' who truely believe that there has been a Miscarriage of Justice of some sort and while generally being unwilling to be law breakers 'go along with' others who may have different agendas, self protection or revenge for example. I think we must face it that some Police or ex Police have taken the whole Bain case personally. We've had reports on TM from the indiscreet supersleuth of conversations with Milton Weir and discussion about Milton Weir's impending book, and other information that supersleuth is so willing to swallow.

Then we must go deeper again, some of 'these people' are highly offended by evidence that Robin Bain was a paedophile, offended to the point that they are unable to realise that evidence is simply material, exhibits, testimony that tells a story and that the telling of that story is not to be reacted against emotionally it is to be assessed nothing more. Those that hold this hand of cards will most likely also be diverse among themselves, some are clearly paedophile supporters or apologists (we have had Stockdale and Newton recorded here from TM) explaining the most bizarre sexual activity in a nonchalant way. Some are probably even paedophiles.

Before continuing I should also say that many probably genuine people are among the ranks because it is clear that with the amount of evidence of stalking and threatening that has taken place some of those genuine people have dropped off, I'd suggest having had the good sense to see the beast that the hate-sites have become. People who might have had reservations about some evidence, or some gossip or something that didn't make sense - but who of course would immediately become ripe pickings for the misinformists, liars and propagandists that also populate the ranks of the hate-sites.

I think also there is a distortion of religion used by some of the hate-siters to justify their persecution and hate, real zealots and fanatics as has been shown by some of the more bizarre posts of Christine Williams all hellfire and brimstone, righteous soldiers on the way to slay the disbelievers and their families. Simply put very, very nutty.

I think we have also seen the egoists in competition, Stockdale and Kent Parker, moment of fame, full of bs and bravado and no thought for the fact (as has been displayed graphically in the last week) that they never had any comprehension of the evidence before 'deciding' David's guilt. Too thick in many ways to understand very basic evidence, too thick to be dispassionate and not look for things to suit their ends rather that to coolly look at what they know, become more informed, and perhaps make a decision that could be qualified with argument not mantra or lies.

So there are a number of types I suggest, some quite sick, other misguided, some looking for revenge and it goes on. But that is not to disregard that some may be a mixture of types, and to recognise that the hate-sites change individuals, subject them to new 'freedom's of thought, new frontiers of reality and what is right. That is the nature of hate-sites and that is what they breed from - no distinction, the simple belief (in this case that David is guilty) and you're in however unacceptable you may feel in other forums or walks of life. Some might view this as an exaggeration, but we've seen in places (even on reports to this blog) visitors to the site and how they were treated should they not 'conform.' I have had the experiences myself.

My view is that they are coming undone, dramatically and by their own hand. I hope that those that have been 'picked up and carried' along by the 'euphoria' of peddling hate and suddenly realised so, will pull out, abandon ship, and those that realise things are over their heads take the precaution of contacting me here or someone else able to help them.

So I haven't answered Poirot's question as fully as I could have, but I hope I have answered it with some reason.