Lucky_trader, old Trev still ripping people off....

palmer29 (9 ) 12 Apr 2011 lucky_trader was the seller
Sold for $69.99
(#365723668)

trade was quick,but item did not work very well.
trader responded: 12 Apr 2011
The product is very simple to use and is known to work well. If you cannot use it properly, please ask someone to assist you. Sometimes people are unrealistic in their expectations, expecting a magic wand to fix years of neglect. Reasonable people are happy with results.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Old Trev is still at it, blaming the failure of a new product on 'years of neglect' without realising the poor victim only brought the product this month. Maybe dirty, untrustworthy_trader Trev, needs some of the psychiatric help that kenty's hogging.

Kent Parkers, Counterspin - out of the closet!!!

Way to go Kenty. Love the new advertising for your nutter bros....

Dr G Frerichs, Auckland Counselling 4 depression,anxiety stress,relationship problems & more gudrunfrerichs.com
Ask a Psychiatrist Online 5 Psychiatrists Are Online. Current Wait Time: 7 Minutes. Child-Sexual-Abuse.JustAnswer.com
China Women For Dating 10000+Carefully Selected Chinese Women Seek Love.Join to Choose one! www.Chnlove

Like attracts like. At the top of Counterspin (the dead duck, locked up sickos site) are the foregoing advertisements. Counselling for depression, anxiety stress, relationship problems and more. You can also talk to a psychiatrist on line, wait time, 7 minutes, because Kent is getting some more free advice on why he's such a moron. After that if you've got a big enough house you can hitch up with 10,000 carefully selected women 'seek love' instead of, as in Kenty's case, doing it by yourself while you talk to the psychiatrist for 50th time today on the phone. Way to go Kenty.

Don Brash - fascinating watch.

The peripherals.

Rodney Hide already sent to Conventry, his leadership under attack.

Then...

John Key implying a deal had been done with ACT in Epsom in the last week or so. Soon after Don Brash announcing a leadership bid for a party (ACT) of which he is yet to become a member, citing as an ally John Banks. Banks only saying that Epsom was over Hide. Don Brash talking in the tone of offers that can't be refused and going onto indicate he would form his own party if necessary but could see that ACT was already a runner and simply needed to get rid of rotten Rodney. Rodney and Boscowan indignant, talking about the democracy of their party as if in the rush of their propriety that had forgotten that they'd both been democratic with the truth over Mr Passport Peddler to the point that they kept quiet about it.

Meanwhile John, having a cup of tea with the Queen or somebody in London used his phone shoe to tell an eager NZ press, surprise, surprise, that he wouldn't rule out working with dear Don before diving into another creamy scone and smacking his lips at the maid. Rodney was fairly petulant at this point and he said Don was old, as though he suspected nobody had noticed. Every nana with a blue rinse in Epsom responded by poking a needle in their doll of Rodney dancing in a tutu. Mr Boscowan fully endorsed the comment as an example of Rodney's political acumen. Such insightful political sense to alienate a good percentage of your voters who were already unhappy about Rodney perking a trip with his girlfriend at the taxpayers expense and saying 'it was good for me' but forgetting to ask the public 'was it good for you?'

In all an interesting and lively watch. Some other factors perhaps submerged in a plot that has seen Garrett, Power and perhaps now Rodney go. Time will tell. And also tell the power broker, dealer and who wins most.

Joe Karam, Peter Jansen - something inconsistent here.

To TradeMe Support

Inconsistent treament of those defamed on Trade Me.

I note a second thread has been removed on the subject of Peter Jansen who is currently suing an ACC client. I am at lost of how this is reconciled with the fact that Bain threads remain, populated by the same people from the hate-sites that defamed Karam and Bain before, during and after the trial, despite Mr Karam bringing the same type of proceedings against TM as those of Peter Jensen who has done so against a client of ACC.

It can easily be argued that the threads in respect of Peter Jansen are benign in nature compared to those against Mr Karam where it continues that such idiots as obook (a probable soon named co-defendant,) Rachael Membery, Ralph Taylor, Black repeat the same lies run against Karam and Bain for many years and which were never proven in evidence and in many cases were not evidence at all but fabrications by a clique of those, that for whatever reason, identify with a dead paedophile, a bit of a fiddly situation you might agree. Trade Me are wholly responsible for those publications and have never sought to establish the veracity or honesty of the published material of the members of the now, closed to the public, hate-sites. I bring this to your attention once again formally as it is no doubt something that will become significant later in the proceedings TM now face.

It is an easily reached conclusion that there might be perceived some benefit to TM for TM to allow the defamation of Karam to continue. Every piece of disputed evidence or non evidence raised by the hate-siters above is a clear implication that Mr Karam has lied or rorted the system to the point that only a few enlightened sickos know the real 'truth.' This 'truth' TM continue to wittingly publish whilst at the same time silencing any on line conversation about another plaintiff who it happens is not suing TM. See any connection there? I do, and I'm sure many others will.

Anyway, I assume Mr Karam will have noted that TM act as a publisher when it suits them and the rest of the time pretend not to be, hard to figure out as well?

Warmest regards



PS. The deleted Jensen threads are saved to bear comparison with the undeleted Bain threads.

Anzac Day for one young child..

A part of many lives that may never be reconciled, mystery and awe for the younger, sorrow, shame, or bonding pride for others. I remember too the old soldiers marching as though stepping from time and a life far away back into suburban streets, unpainted landscapes, drum beats upon the paved streets that children might wave and dream a dream of gallant lads whilst mothers watched thinking of a young man lost and being alone except for a war that never stopped.

This from projecthr...

I remember as an almost seven year old, marching beside my grandfather, at the Dawn parade in Auckland. It's one of those memories you never forget - the ceremony, the pride and honour of belonging to someone so much part of the day. It was his last ANZAC day.

As I marched along, holding my grandfather's sleeve, because he had lost an arm in WWI, I remember the other old soldiers around me, stopping to pat me on the head and smile, as if I was part of their family too.

I realise now I was. For them, the survivors of Gallipoli, a little six year old girl was what it was all about - their children and their children's children, and the thought of a better and free life for them all - that was why so many happily gave their time and for some their lives to fight a battle, that wasn't of their making.

You can argue over the politics or the right or wrongfulness of what was done during the wars this country has involved itself in - but in the end what matters most of all, is the men and woman who gave and suffered more than any of us have ever known - just to be sure we had a future.

Of course we will remember them - Lest We Forget

Quote
project_hr (2282 ) 10:34 am, Mon 25 Apr #14

Scott Watson: The review of the convictions of Scott Watson has

finally reached Justice Minister Simon Power. The review took 2 years and cost $143,000, undertaken by Kristy McDonald at a cost between $350 to $400 per hour. Translated to an average hourly rate of $400 per hour, the actual review by time would have taken just over 7 weeks with an estimated hours worked per week as 50. Taking into account logistic difficulties, or inquiries to and advice from experts one could reasonably expect the nearly 2 months spent on the report could be tripled to 6, so what happened to the other 18months?

Unfortunately without explanations about that one could be left wondering about the competency of the review, and also the lack of priority it appears to have been given. Overall an impression is given about a reluctance to move by the Crown, a dragging of feet and we see history repeat itself where no urgency is applied to potential Miscarriages of Justice, no single body, financed by the Crown, able to dig into suspect convictions with energy and experience from having performed the task before. It's far from robust Justice and the idea that a Minister appoints somebody, for reasons of his or her own, to investigate such matters seems too casual and likely to greeted with scepticism by the public at large.

If people can robustly be thrown into prison on suspect evidence the same robust power should be available for those unfortunates to have hard questions asked in a timely manner by a properly constructed and designed independent body to weigh into the fray, with both power and neutral concepts of the soundness of the conviction. Others may have seen the interview with Aaron Farmer's mother recently where she was reduced to having to write letter after letter to anyone she could think of to have her innocent son released from prison. It's bloody mickey mouse, outdated and does not serve the master principle that 'justice must be seen to be done' with attendant haste.

Ultimately because of New Zealand's dim record of falsely imprisoning the innocent the conclusion reached by the public is that the Police do get it wrong and it is bloody hard, almost impossible to overcome. Responsibility for that lies with Parliament, advice should be taken from the Law Commission, The Chief Justice, The Law Society on the construction of a credible and accountable body being established to allow people such as Aaron Farmer's mother, Scott Watson's father, the late Vivien Harrison a place to take their concerns where they, and the public can have confidence that there is a passage out of prison for the falsely imprisoned that is not through the same corridors of the Department that have imprisoned them.

Petitioning the Governer General, as Scott Watson has done, is proven to a laborious task that ultimately reports back to the Justice Department anyway. The same folder that could have been sitting on Simon Power's desk 3 years ago only arrives now. And even the issue of where that folder or brief should go needs also to be look at. A statute other than habeas corpus should allow reviews or inquiries to go directly to the Courts, and not to the Government of the day. The procedure as it stands looks weighted in favour of the Crown. Who benefit's from a 2 year inquiry that only took something like 350 hours to complete, not Scott Watson, nor an interested public.

Before closing on the subject, in some details of the review it is revealed that Kirsty McDonald was unsuccessful in meeting one of the 2 'secret' witnesses who had recanted their testimony against Scott. Begging me to ask am I the only one that can see the King as no clothes. If this 'secret' person has recanted his testimony, throw the whole blinking lot out. Don't ask Kirsty McDonald to interview him, the testimony is shot and Kirsty McDonald interviewing him gives the impression that this person's evidence is important. Well, how can it be he's given two different stories and Kirsty's efforts to a sceptical mind present a conclusion that she might be trying to 'shore' up the evidence rather that rightfully dismiss it as it should be. Again this is an area for the Courts and history shows that as the strength of convictions is weakened a reliance is promoted on other material formerly considered to be marginal or less than important in upholding the conviction.

Peter Jansen is angry.

You can tell that because he's hit a pillow with a rock. Peter Jansen don't like it if you say he's cheating some way, maybe being a prick and making money for it. He doesn't like to be criticised. If you criticise Peter Jansen he might sue you - he'll hit a pillow with a rock. Peter Jansen says if you're in his care and don't like it you can't say anything because he'll take all the money off you that you don't have.

Old Pete should lighten up, being angry all the time might affect his gonads. He could lose his gonads and end up suing one of his patients just because he's uptight worrying about what people are saying about him being tied up with the other mob, ACC. Pete seems to think he's not working for the mob, he should realise by now that the whole country knows that he is and that some of the more sceptical think he's milking it. Buy a cowshed Pete, one of those old fashion ones and run a few dairy cows. It might help.

Pete don't seem so bright. Pete is making a fool of himself in a fight he can't win. Pete, the silly man, is making a right prick of himself proving that he is one.

Trade Me - Culpability coming down the line.

We've recently seen Trade Me remove a thread started about Dr Peter Jansen suing an ACC client for calling him, tongue in cheek it would seem, an 'incompetent prick.' The thread still exists in entirety on Votemenot and meanwhile another new thread has been running for a week.

Being called an 'incompetent prick' in cyberspace as it exists at the moment wouldn't rate as extreme defamation because people get described as being all manner of pricks..stupid, silly, dumb pricks and so forth. At the other end of that are threads of note that TM allow to continue to run, most particularly those defaming Joe Karam and David Bain where both men are called names more damaging than prick and to this day have 'evidence' produced against them that is pure lies. Of course Karam is suing Trade Me over comments they have published and an issue in those proceedings, possibly the only issue, will be whether or not TM are a publisher.

To this point in all their literature they claim they're not publishers nor editors and say those roles lie with the individual posters and members of the TM community who can vote them off. That is despite that at the moment any Bain thread is unable to be voted off. If it is decided in Law, and it is a question of Law, that TM are a publisher I don't imagine they'll be able to do much other than settle, they cannot, and I doubt would try to, argue that David is guilty of murder (he's in fact been acquitted) and any arguments along those lines would see them taking total responsibility for the posts that they claim are published by other on their boards (how conveniently) and are not their responsibility. They foul this role by acting as moderators, often only on request, moderator being a modern term applicable to on line editing.

This week they've had another setback in their claim of being innocent bystanders while nasty people write defamatory remarks on their message board. John Marshall QC had been asked to examine what part the Ministry of Justice had played in the publication of suppressed details of victims on the Ministry's website. It transpires, according to John Marshall, that before anything was published on the Ministry website judgements were checked before being published to ensure they complied with suppression orders and statutory publications.

In effect this pre 'checking' was editing, to ensure no breaches of orders were published. Apparently of 10 cases identified as wrongfully published none had the required 'banner or flag at the top.' Mr Marshall said the Ministry, as the website publisher, had the responsibility to 'carefully read and check [the judgements] to ensure suppression requirements were complied with, whether or not there were flags.'

As some readers might be aware TM regularly publish suppressed material and there are records showing it can remain published on their board ad infinitum. But that is possibly less of a problem for TM than Mr Marshall's recognition, and the Government's acceptance that the Ministry is without doubt the publisher (no resistance from them on that point) and therefore responsible for what the publish.

For some time I've thought that TM's 'rules' are an attempt to indemnify themselves against responsibility for what happens on a message board that they both own and operate. Unfortunately for TM, Mr Marshall's view of internet publishing is both accepted precedent and practice and no company or individual in NZ can indemnify themselves against responsibility for illegal activity. Cases go back as far as the sixties and possibly beyond that prove it is accepted precedent that what one publishes they own, and defamatory comment can be the liability of the speaker and the publisher, with the publisher (probably) taking the greater responsibility for spreading the defamation to a wider audience. In effect the passage of time is showing that the printed word, whether manually printed in a printers shop, or electronically (as in cyberspace) is one and the same with the same rules applying. Not new rules set up by a profit making organisation with contempt for protocols and the rights of others but rules established under law and precedent. TM you are sunk, along with your hate-site nannies.

Dr Peter Jansen, the issue over how he was

able to 'locate' his alleged defamer.

I don't think it matters. Most people would agree that a defamer, respondent, or defendant in any legal matter can't find shelter because of their belief that their real identity or whereabouts was secret, and was thereby acting as some sort of shield against the allegations raised against them. That won't do in the final wash up.

However, the defamer once named and identified to the Court is able to build a profile of the person they apparently defamed. Many people would think that the Doctor's determination for compensation against his alleged defamer might also be a measure of his 'prick' like nature, or his attitude or general feelings of his sovereignty over those his professional life has impacted upon. Jansen never owned or controlled his alleged defamer and if he has overstepped his role as a Government representative and employee by engaging in a campaign against someone currently or in the past, being in his care - all the characteristics of that campaign should be judged both in terms of him being called an incompetent prick, and whether he (a man probably worth millions, earned in part by contract with the Government) is able to 'step out' from his contracted role, and bring to task, a client who is not only dissatisfied with his performance but sees him as a paid employee and public figure associated with ACC.

If the NZ public, represented by a Jury, consider that Jansen benefited from his relationship in planing the 'pathways' to better performance by ACC, whom he was also to be employed by and seen as being spokesperson, director, and architect of ACC and that his performance, along with that of ACC, was incompetent, it is impossible for the Doctor to be extracted from that recognised role into one where he can allege that if in the public mind ACC are recongised as being incompetent, he stood alone as being competent and not a prick. Oh dear.

An unprecedented event, Doctor Peter Jansen sues client...

for apparently calling him an incompetent prick on a blog.

I'd missed this story somewhat through being busy with work, smelling roses and having some fun in the pig swill. Trade Me had been running a thread on the subject for 3 days, and which was removed a few hours ago. However, it is 'saved' to Votemenot in it's entirety. Perhaps TM have decided they do not want to face liability for the contents of the thread, but I would imagine it is too late because it ran for several days and TM are aware that it has 'leaked' into cyberspace so that any damage from their publication continues. There may interesting parallels to this event and to the suit TM are currently facing brought by Joe Karam which I may write about later. In the meantime the following (taken from VMN - thanks TM) gives some of the background that makes this 'case' interesting.

project_hr wrote:
I personally believe he may have deliberately targeted Jax because he knew she was a fighter and wouldn't sit back and take it. and so he kept an eye on her, which is obvious. How many other people managed to find Jax's blog before this week? Very very few. He wanted a fight, so he could win the governments approval, and but an end to any future attempt by anyone brave enough to speak out.


I still don't think that's relevant. Dr Jansen is exercising his right to protect his good name under NZ law. Being a victim of alleged abuse does not put anyone above the law.

Above are two opinions one suggesting the obvious that Mr Jansen is muscling up, similar to other Government initiatives in the past to show power, Bastion Point, the Tuhoe 'insurgents' and last week the Navy arriving to tell Greenpeace activists to stop swimming off the east coast because they were keeping the dolphins awake.

The second raises the real interest for me. 'Dr Jansen is exercising his right to protect his good name under NZ law.' I think this fails to distinguish that Dr Jansen is effectively a Government employer in the particular area of ACC services and is indeed an architect of the 'modern' design of services offered to the Public by ACC in return for the enormous levies paid. An immediate question is raised of how, someone who is effectively a Government employee, a public figure, who has been criticised for his performance by peer groups who have called for his resignation, can hope to have his 'reputation' separated both from his personal performances but also that of ACC? I think most would agree there is abroad strong opinion that ACC is generally incompetent and somewhat a slow moving crisis, attendant to that opinion is that ACC staff, contractors or otherwise are part of the whole disaster.

It may go further though, as projecthr, has pointed out above, could the good Doctor be concentrating on an easy target? For example is he suing those that have called for his resignation, because no doubt they are not calling for his resignation because they believe him to be competent in his job. So we come to the 'offensive' word 'prick,' I think dear Doctor Jansen needs to get out more because 'prick' is common day language and being called one when working for a department that a high percentage of the population consider incompetent goes with the territory, as does being a public figure.

The appropriateness of a member of the Government suing his or her own client is not defined, but common sense would suggest there are probably legal restrictions preventing such a move, and in particular while still working for that Department and without 'employer' approval. Dear Doctor gets himself further in trouble because of the tactics he has used with his 'dawn raid' that has identified a person who is most likely entitled (despite whatever behaviour they may display) the ongoing confidence and privacy normally entitled a person who has received Professional care or advice. Naughty Doctor.

And Naughty Doctor might also be Dumb Doctor because he has, by his own choice 'advertised' his alleged incompetency and prick-like manner. When in fact a more measured, and more properly advised approach and procedure would have been to inform the Minister at the very least and take sound advice, which in fact may have been the less intrusive way for his ex-client (who after all is effectively 'in the care' of the Doctor's employer) and sought, failing negotiation, a Court order to prevent the Respondent/Defendant from naming the Doctor in her blog or any other place. But no, he donned the knight's armour, and the test may yet be measured whether he is in fact worthy of the knight's armour and honour or a rogue misfit attempting to slay an inert and already wounded target.

Police coverups....

It's noteworthy that in the cases of wrongful imprisonment or violence against prisoners or members of the public that there is often an official response, belatedly, that always reminds the public of the number of years since the things which contributed to a wrongful imprisonment happened, or how the officer involved was dealt with.

Hard to swallow really, when a member or members of the Police are found to have been involved in 'fitting' an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit, it's seldom, if ever an isolated event inside an inquiry. It is an event inside a particular investigation to which there is control to a single man, the officer in charge. So if the OIC isn't 'aware' of what is happening during the 'construction' of the case against an accused he isn't doing his job, but certainly orchestrating and controlling the event. He or she are doing what he/she 'thinks' is the job and encouraging, and then turning a 'blind eye' to the type of incident that led to the wrongful imprisonment of Aaron Farmer, the Christchurch man who was told he had committed a rape because there was proof and probably believed it.

This is another event, like the Thomas case, where an operational officer has apparently become a 'maverick' and helped obtained a conviction in a case where but for his/her intervention the wrong person would have never gone before the Court. The reason why Hutton, in the Thomas case, didn't ask questions over suddenly appearing evidence is because it was his instruction that it was planted and found. The police continue to exercise the helpful explanation that one or two bad eggs were responsible when in fact no operational investigation is at the hands of anyone other than the OIC, and in due course those higher. If one part of an investigation fails because of the unlawful conduct of an officer, then it is also his/her superiors involved. No country fights a war after which it is agreed that it was the man in the trench's fault and not that of Generals who later claim they didn't know the war was on.

The Police have over-used this tactic, it is now as obvious as people's distress about the coverups for officers after inquiries that resulted from planted evidence or perjury, but more so for the leaders who are never held responsible. It isn't good enough, nor that the cover-up continues right to the Commissioner in some cases or the Minister because they accept the 'unacceptable,' a flawed logic or concept that one bad apple in the barrel was the reason for a false conviction. Of course this acceptance is usually many years after the event, and 'distanced' in time for all but the falsely imprisoned, families of the victims and a public made distrustful.

Could the sudden frenzy and contradicting posts of

the hate-siters populating Trade Me be linked to the news today that Christchurch man Aaron Farmer was awarded compensation because of 'extraordinary circumstances' provision that David Bain's team is reported to be pursuing.

It was only recently that one of the 'great leaders' of the hate-sites was claiming that David had withdrawn his claim or had never made one. He must feel so sad in his silence now, apparently he is suddenly in poor health and all but an invalid and of weak mind but still willing to sing. Nevertheless, the 'extraorodinary circumstances' in the case of David Bain remain, apparent as they have been from the first moment after the 5th 'not guilty' was proclaimed as the final resolution of the man's innocence and the guilt of his father. Apparent as they were from the revelation of the father's dna found in the rifle, and the farcical myth of a 'paper round alibi.' Who brought that, only those with paper mache brains and funny hats.

Along happens pedo-pal ralphie,

contradicting old sookie and trying to cover for blackie, can't these idiots keep to one story....

But fingerprints were found on David's gun.Period.There were also smudges found indicating that someone had wiped the gun down to remove them
So, 7%?What percentage of those firearms were small arms or rifles with wooden stiocks?

Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 6:07 pm, Thu 14 Apr #32073

Now we have fingerprints on the rifle again, smudged this time from being 'wiped down.' Isn't there one idiot amongst the host of them that can keep the story straight or who realises the fragility of fingerprints and their resistance to certain surfaces and substances? We go from heaps of fingerprints, to only Davids, then to Davids and Stephens, then no fingerprints apart from Davids because they had been wiped off. Will the real fingerprints please stand up and close the asylum doors.

Earth to spinner black....tune in to your girlfriends...

Here goes spinner black, giggling uncontrollably....

frank_m wrote:

No, simplistic nonsense.


Absolutely agree. One person alive and his fingerprints are on the gun in fresh blood. One person dead and his fingerprints are not on the gun.

Simplistic nonsense to think the dead man killed himself and wiped his fingerprints off the gun after death. Or that the dead man wouldn't leave prints on a blood stained rifle though everybody else did!

Quotejmhb51 (1 ) 4:15 pm, Thu 14 Apr #32070

Dear spinner,
can't you keep up the party line? Didn't you read that fatty osook and the other twisted sisters claim the rifle was wiped of fingerprints. You're right about 'nonsense to think the dead man killed himself and wiped his fingerprints off the gun after death.' But nobody but you and the other hangbainers have been saying that. Frank m wasn't saying it and obook was trumpeting loudly that the gun had been wiped, wiped blackie old girl, very old girl. And then you come out with this riveting pearly 'the dead man wouldn't leave pronts on a blood stained rifle though everybody else did.'

Simply stunning blackie old pal, a fine description of what arsewipes you are and how you each are so far up yourselves you don't understand or bother to read what your twisted girlfriend sisters like Ralph and Tony claim. Perhaps, if you ever get released from care you'll be able to explain how the prints remained on the rifle, that would be interesting. You make me wonder if there is even just one hate-siter that isn't a retarded moron. You could be in line for a moron award drrh brain.

The continuing lies of a hate-site fiddler....

well actually there are very few suicides where the deceased doesn't make it abundantly clear that they have taken their life. most people who commit suicide:

do not leave a weapon wiped of prints (different to no prints)

do not set up another person to be implicated in ther death

do not arrange for someone else to unwittingly wash thier clothes before they die

do not leave a "suicide note" that could have been written by anybody - if they are going to leave a note they make it clear who wrote it and why

don't turn themselves inside out to shoot themselves - they use the most reliable method of placing the barrel of the gun in their mouth

have 'suicide' recorded on their death certificate

are counted in the suicide statistics for the year, rather than the homicide statistics

Quoteobook (174 ) 9:30 pm, Tue 12 Apr #32059

The fat tony maintains his lies.

He claims the rifle was wiped of prints when indeed multiple prints were found on it.
Why would he lie about that if he were not just a persecuting mongrel. Why do the hang-bainers need to lie?

He claims that Robin 'set up' his son, when in fact the only person to set up David was an over zealous police force who didn't understand the forensics and when the finally did, refused to change course. The same officers who 'moved' evidence about, and who refused to alter testimony that resulted in a false conviction.

He claims that Robin unwittingly got David to wash his clothes. Robin was dead idiot head.

He comforts himself by saying that the suicide note could have been written by anybody. In fact only 1 person could have written it because there was only 1 person alive in the house and when David returned that person had committed suicide.

Fat arsewipe claims the suicide pose was difficult, well it would be for somebody like him with short arms and a head the size of prize winning pumpkin, but in fact the suicide was the easiest way for a right hand dominant gunman.

Fat osook claims that Robin has 'suicide' recorded on his death certificate, as if that would make any difference anyway, but again he lies because his death is described as 'by gunshot.' He says that the death was not counted in 'suicide' statistics for the year which is as far away he can get from explaining the spatter occluded as being from Robin's wound ending up on his shoe, the upward trajectory shot and his blood deep inside the barrel.

osook and his pedo mates, just a bunch of persecuting mongrels, intent on covering up what is recorded in the history books for all time - David Bain, not guilty times 5.

But don't worry osook. You're not forgotten for the role you've played in hounding this man with lies, as you repeat now in sullen, intemperate, breathing and dribbling hate. I see you're joined by a donkey lover (in every sense of the word,) old fiddler Ralphie who denys the strip search and blood in the rifle, and Sue Coates (kookybelle) who for 2 years has been going to present the autopsy report that 'proves' Laniet was never pregnant. What a bunch of fiddling rejects, who like your now silent mates, will run and hide. I look forward to your 'evidence,' that'll be fun.

fat tony osook, the plaigariser, and wanna be

forensic psychiatrist instead of psychiatrist patient, comes into the light....

frank_m wrote:

I've given TWO examples - one murder/suicide, another suicide - where no prints were left.

So it IS possible and actually quite likely. Only about 7% of suicides by gun leave identifiable prints.


well actually there are very few suicides where the deceased doesn't make it abundantly clear that they have taken their life. most people who commit suicide:

do not leave a weapon wiped of prints (different to no prints)

do not set up another person to be implicated in ther death

do not arrange for someone else to unwittingly wash thier clothes before they die

do not leave a "suicide note" that could have been written by anybody - if they are going to leave a note they make it clear who wrote it and why

don't turn themselves inside out to shoot themselves - they use the most reliable method of placing the barrel of the gun in their mouth

have 'suicide' recorded on their death certificate

are counted in the suicide statistics for the year, rather than the homicide statistics

Quoteobook (174 ) 9:30 pm, Tue 12 Apr #32059
steve1958 wrote:

Plus if the prints had been there that long . There would be a rusting occuring . Pitting .As blood will rust steel . Unless cleaned .


i thought the prints were on the stock. but in any case they would not have survived; they would have dried and flaked; they would definitely not be still intact after a killing rampage and a violent struggle in which the gun was smeared with blood. and they wouldn't survive the cleaning of the blood from the gun.

Quoteobook (174 ) 9:32 pm, Tue 12 Apr #32060

Bullshitting tony, previously of Dunedin, suggests that the rifle was wiped down but forgets, in his overweighted fiddly ways, that the rifle stored numerous fingerprints. Bad luck tony, and thanks for the lecture on suicide poses - it would have been easier for you to pose with a bag of sweets in support of pedo bro. Dear, oh dear, oh dear, what a reject pedo pal you are rodney sooky sooky, pity you didn't have a brain because you could have plugged it in and worked out what that brown stuff coming out your mouth is.

To note the passing of Vivien Harrison.

The former Vivien Thomas passed away Friday last at home in Queensland at the age of 68. I think it is very difficult to imagine how the deaths of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe and the subsequent arrest and false imprisonment of her then husband Arthur Thomas played out in the life of Vivien.

It appeared to an outsider that she was thrust into the limelight and a particular role to bolster support for Arthur before and after his convictions. In many ways she was the public face of a tragedy this country has never quite got over. Not only did she have to deal with her husband being imprisoned for life for murders she knew he hadn't committed but there was also the successful 'stroke' of rumour that she had played a part by feeding the baby Rochelle Crewe in the days preceding the discovery of the murders. In a case with evidence planted it is easy to fix upon the tangible things such as an axle or bullet casing but forget the stroke on innuendo, that without any tangible proof or over riding logic it was suggested that Vivien had played a part in a cover up of the murders. The confounding logic that her husband had killed the child's parents and then she had fed the baby, never having been seen to have done so and ignoring the distance between her home and the home of the Crewes.

In a case that was built of fantasy and fabrication what better way to blacken the alibi witness for Arthur than claim that she knew about the murders and went out of her way, at great risk but never seen, never linked by any proof, to feed the baby Rochelle. So the alibi witness had a credibility problem induced by a claim for which there was no proof. And what was the personal toll of this woman, how was her life affected, was she ever the same again? Was she compensated in any form, apologised to, no. Even her attempts as recently as last year were side-glanced to 'preserve' what is already seen as one of the blackest instances of policing in New Zealand. I wonder if the effects for her were any less than that that of Arthur, she lost her freedom, unwillingly became a public figure of whom some would willingly buy the story that she was some kind of an accomplice after the fact. She lost her marriage and her future that she had chosen when marrying Arthur.

I can only imagine some of the secrets that have gone to the grave with her. The conduct of some of the officers and officials when she was seen as some sort of wanton figure and accomplice to the acts of murder. What a truly magnificent dignity she held and it was great to read today that Arthur spoke of what Vivien endured where he acknowledged the stress she was under during his imprisonment, 'something that dawned on him later in life.'

So for now a minute or 2 to think of a woman victimised by a system that had no real degree of self-analysis, no willingness to double check and check again, no willingness to hang out to dry the good old boys doing their jobs to fit up someone for a murder unable to be solved 'any' other way. And where does it stop, right at the top, when a man hasn't got the guts to say 'that's wrong, that doesn't make sense,' a man entrusted by the law and the public to do that. Arthur reported her pet phrase 'was that there were only 3 people who knew for certain (the killer of the Crewes,) herself, Arthur and the detective (Detective Bruce Hutton) who led the case.' And a reminder, as in the Bain case, the detective's that 'moved' evidence, 'forgot' to record changes to testimony were not acting as anything other than part of a team overlooked by one man, overlooked by a Commissioner of Police and that's how it works, or indeed fails to work.

So Vivien is gone now, and for many of those of us that didn't know her, but only had the experience of seeing her thrust into a role nobody could be envious of, or prepared for, she was a real beauty with a fine heart and unflinching dignity as she was slowly destroyed by lies and heartbreak.

Why do Trade Me publish these pedo's filth....

To Trade Me Support

#32024

How is that Trade Me allow this pedo-apologist liar to continue his attacks on David Bain by saying there was no forensic proof against his father Robin. That is a deliberate lie intended to mislead, it is also defamatory. How is that a hate-site dribbler can continue to post material without any evidence and in contradiction of the findings of a Jury. This is disgusting that TM allow these sick people to continue their hate campaign on TM boards. I'm intending to make this an issue of cross-examination in the near future to determine how TM can approve of, and publish reported 'evidence' that is fabricated by a group intent on protecting the 'good' memory of a dead paedophile.

The lying bro fiddler Ralph Taylor still at it.....

I thought I would provide an update on Jeremy Bamber who is currently serving a "whole of life tarriff" for the murder in August 1985 of all his family (5) .One feature of the case is the manner in which Bamber attempted to implicate his sister ,Sheila Caffill of the murders who at the time was suffering from paranoid schizophernia .But in a similar manner to Robin Bain there was no forensic evidence linking her to the family murders.Bamber ,his legal team and supporters have all but given up on this avenue and now are focussed on a police cover up including a bizzare notion that a" James Bond type" could of being involved.Below a blog by Israel Rank provides a backgound to the case with a thorough review of the evidence and the case against Bamber.It is interesting to note how Jeremy Bamber and his supporters have largely focussed on some alleged inconsistencies and errors in the orginal police investigation
Bamber still protests his innocence but his current appeal has been rejected but has been given 3 months in which to respond to the 89 page decision.

http://crimeheartsandcoronets.blogspot.com/2010/11/jeremy-ba
mber-guilty-as-charged.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/11/jeremy-bamber-loses
-chance-appeal

Edited by jeeves-50 at 11:40 am, Mon 11 Apr

Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 11:32 am, Mon 11 Apr #32024

To repeat what the lying fiddler says, 'But in a similar manner to Robin Bain there was no forensic evidence linking her to the family murders.'

Of course Ralph, Robin's bloodied and cut hands, someone else's high speed spatter on his shoe, an upward trajectory shot, no shielded area in the spatter from his brain, his dna found inside the rifle, none of that is forensic proof is it Ralphie. Not to you anyway because you're a pedo-apologist bro sicko.

Look, the fiddlers are out in force.

Led by the banned beekeeper rodie bro, and followed up the rear by sue daddy bro donkey doos in another confounding display from a bewildered mind. Well, the standards still slipping, the hangbainers don't have a clue and the fact remains, in history books for all time, old daddy fiddler is the one 'what done it.'

There were 2 possible suspects in the Bain family murder case David Bain, and Robin Bain, thus far NO logical usable forensic or circumstantial evidence of Robins involvement in these murders has been found.

Quotesophier8 (7 ) 11:15 am, Sun 10 Apr #32021
"Where’s the rule that says the media has to accept the jury verdict?"

There is no rule. It is legal to express one's opinion that the jury verdict was incorrect.

Quotejmhb51 (1 ) 12:34 pm, Sun 10 Apr #32022
jmhb51 wrote:

"Where’s the rule that says the media has to accept the jury verdict?"

There is no rule. It is legal to express one's opinion that the jury verdict was incorrect.

Or the public, but it is still the wider issues around the system, justice and rules around hearsay and evidence (excluded and included) and the legality of 'defaming the dead' to show 'innocence' that have struck me about this. This case has just thrown up those issues that exist inherently in the system to be used and abused by counsel and which are clearly able to be cited, with reference, due to the amount of material out in the public domain. It is the system that has allowed this perversion to be perpetuated not just the actors. It is great to see as evidenced in the Northguy thread that the message boards are read by those who might be interested in gauging 'opinion' and understanding of the public.

Quotegoldnkiwi (611 ) 12:44 pm, Sun 10 Apr #32023

Some more surprises due for the members of the hang-bainers, more disclosure about their activities. Won't make pretty reading folks to see how they've tried to manipulate the system and use threats and intimidation to cover up daddy's rude stuff. Perhaps dickleberry and rodie will be required to explain how their tactics were arrived and exercised, that will be interesting. But they'll need to wait in line for a little while yet because the 'fearless' three need more time to spill the beans.

Keep your lies going rodie, keep lying your rotten head off, keep ignoring the evidence against the rotten fiddler father.

Donkeys these days, that act like asses...

Old dickleberryhead has broken into the sherry cabinet again, the bros won't be happy. Her dad was a bro and she sued him. She was having a spat with old Ralphie Taylor whose dad was a bro as well and he didn't like her talking about it, whatever it is. I've heard that dead daddy was a bro too. If you read that thread on TM you'll see many links between the bros and the hate-sites. In the following she his having a riveting conversation about birds with ms black somebody, maybe they think there was a bird involved that got dear daddy all riled up - I know other people think that and they get attacked for it.

jmhb51 wrote:

What can you expect from someone who doesn't understand the meaning of "free as a bird"?

Giving the 'bird' is free too, perhaps that is misunderstood as well?

Quotegoldnkiwi (611 ) 3:14 pm, Fri 8 Apr #32018

Trade Me Support Post #32018

No body has posted on this thread for days, so the same idiot that always bumps it as some sort of salute to the dead killer bumps the thread again. This person has been doing this for over 6 months, the thread is passed it usefulness, many matters relating to it are now before the Court. The continuation of the bumping of the thread by hate-sites members is provocative and designed to continue the abuse and defamation of Joe Karam and David Bain who was acquitted of all charges almost 2 years ago. Give this idiot a biscuit or something and ban her from the boards because she is aggravating the damage that TM are already facing a legal challenge over.

That beautiful life you have.

I wasn't watching when it happened,
or not so much you might have noticed that
I was mucking about, kicking my toes in dust
and staying close from far away.
I was far away when your beautiful life happened,
over there, near where I see you walk with your love intact,
no love could I steal from you with my broken and wanting ways,
no love I could steal and not give back for
the way you walked and held your beautiful life together
with mine.

Oh look, the fiddler bros are making a pack attack..

sophier8 wrote:

So give us a reason to believe what you are saying IE give us some evidence that links Robin to the murders on Every street, this is essential stuff if poor poor David is ever going to get that big pay day.


Cyber can only give reasons for 'what if that happenend or maybe this happened' senerio's. One never sticks to the facts.
Fact is there is no direct evidence linking Robin to murdering his family.

Quoteloadmaster2 (80 ) 6:01 pm, Wed 6 Apr #32016
What can you expect from someone who doesn't understand the meaning of "free as a bird"?

Quotejmhb51 (1 ) 6:21 pm, Wed 6 Apr #32017

They don't say anything just challenge on negatives that don't exist. The fiddler bros think that everyone is stupid and that the world doesn't know that David was found not guilty and that their fiddler bro was. Bad luck. The newest arsewipe quotes 'what if that happened or maybe that happened' of cybernana when she said no such thing. She simply said that rotten fiddler daddy left part of his brains in the rifle and killed himself with an upward trajectory shot, no 'ifs of buts' about that craploader Andy come lately.

Fiddler Bros at work.

Trade Me Support

This poster, previously banned as Kirkmaiden, continues to harass and defame David Bain, by asking for evidence against the paedophile father whom it was decided by the Jury killed the Bain family. Trade Me are assisting this harassment by allowing sophier, and goldnkiwi, in particular to keep bumping a thread that has long passed it's use by date. They only do this to facilitate hate against David and others, Trade Me should not be allowing this to happen and by doing so are complicit in the damaged caused.

If these two weren't such idiots they'd try to address the forensic proof against the father, but they can't, nor could the Crown. Leaving the conclusion for all time that the absence of evidence against the son is the proof against the father, along with his blood being inside the rifle and somebody else's blood spatter on his shoe.

The certified bro idiot Bill Rodie asking the same dumb

questions....

So give us a reason to believe what you are saying IE give us some evidence that links Robin to the murders on Every street, this is essential stuff if poor poor David is ever going to get that big pay day.

Quotesophier8 (7 ) 9:40 pm, Tue 5 Apr #32015

This idiot bro beekeeper who use to post as Kirkmaiden and who now uses his daughter's account to defend the dead bro fiddler Robin continues with the stupid questions. The evidence fiddler is that David was acquitted by a Jury, the same Jury that were asked by the Judge, 'was it Robin, or was it David' they answered five times with not guilty you pathetic moron fiddler. But to give you credit you are continuing the harassment that will see David paid out because of the lies and planting of evidence by your fellow bros, you will also make an interesting witness along with a few others.

Simon Power, head in the sand? Again?

Legislation that will enhance the privacy, safety and security of jurors was introduced to Parliament today.

Justice Minister Simon Power said the Juries Amendment Bill included a provision to remove the addresses of potential jurors from jury panel lists.

The move comes after convicted murderer George Baker wrote to a juror whose name he saw on a list while he was representing himself in a trial.

Currently, a jury list must contain the name, occupation, date of birth and full address of potential jurors.

Since 2008, self-represented defendants have been prohibited from keeping a copy of the jury list or taking notes, but they can inspect it under supervision.

In addition, where there is a real risk that an accused may intimidate jurors, the prosecutor can apply for a judge-alone trial.

Mr Power said those changes were made to protect the privacy of jurors, but the Baker incident highlighted the need to further restrict access to the information.

"Serving on a jury is an important civic duty and we must do everything we can to make it as safe and easy as possible," he said.

The proposed changes in the bill will:

remove the addresses of potential jurors from jury lists;


allow the prosecution, defence lawyer, or the court-appointed adviser to defendants representing themselves to have automatic access to all address information on request;


prevent the accused from ever seeing potential jurors' addresses by prohibiting the defence lawyer or court-appointed adviser from showing the addresses to the accused;


extend the section of the Juries Act which makes it clear that misconduct in relation to jury lists may be treated as contempt of court to include the act of showing the accused, or any other person, jurors' addresses; and


bar people from serving on a jury if they have, in the previous five years, been sentenced to home detention for three months or more. This puts them in the same category as those sentenced to a short term of imprisonment

Simon Power who knee-jerked the removal of the legislation allowing provocation as a defence in homicide, this despite the previously existing law demonstrably working in the infamous case of Clayton Weatherston. Simon Power who drew John Key to a Sensible Sentencing Trust meeting in company of the fraudsters, McVicar, Hide and Garret only to have it later revealed that the fraudsters had misled the Public over the integrity of Garret and his famous false statistics that enabled the useless 3 strikes law, and more tellingly having withheld statistics about his (Garret's) source of amusement and excitement, stealing identities. Yes, the same Simon Power who has prematurely decided to leave Parliament, the unseasoned practitioner of the Law who bowed to the rednecks rather than the tradition of the evolution of the law as it practised and challenged, now tightens up on the protection of Jurors because a half-baked psycho wrote a letter to a Juror imagining that it might lead to some sort of romantic involvement or even some normality in a disordered mind.

Meanwhile no comment from head-in-the-sand Simon about the Jury stalking of the Bain Jury, real events by people at large and connected to dangerous hate-sites of nutters and fiddlers. People bragging about their stalking of Jury members and what number of Jurors they had (being the identity and whereabouts of those jurors.) Simon, an idiot who is concerned about a self-harming lunatic locked in a high-security prison and not about apparent 'members' of the public who display an entitlement to 'own' and track and stalk a Jury while at the same time defaming and bringing them into disrepute on the boards of cyberspace. Good to see the generous arse-end of you Simon, Garth will give you a job.

I'm happy to see the value of Jury's acknowledged, and protection and guaranteed anonymity for them, but this from a Minister on whose watch a Jury has been stalked and defamed - get a life Simon, shame on you believing you were ever a Minister of Justice and not a fat puppet of the SST. On ya bike ya mug.

And just before finishing this, front up Power and observe the Law. Don't pretend the Magna Carta doesn't exist, or that pompous pricks were restrained from the role of deciding guilt and innocence a 1000 years ago in favour of a properly instructed Jury to ensure the political whim or fancy of a 'Minister' doesn't prejudice Justice and the right to a fair trial by a Jury of one's peers, and not a pretender taking the role of 'King.' You'll probably hide from making a lawful decision regarding the Bain case compensation, but why not show some guts and respect for the law in which you were trained? Respect the law Power. Your disrespect of our system of Law should have been challenged in the High Court months ago when you failed to comprehend your actions present as your 'right' as Minister to elevate yourself above the constitutional right to be judged by one peers. Have you never heard of a 'fair go,' the thing manufactured in the psyche of nzers of a man or woman judging fairness, the right of choice and protection of the law. There is no law that allows you to judge what a jury has already judged.

When a bullet is discharged from

a rifle barrel, the mass of air displaced with the bullet is immediately replaced by the force of atmospheric pressure. This pressure is not selective and draws the immediately available air into the vacuum of the barrel instantly. The source of the air is that most immediately available. In the case of Robin Bain's suicide the air most readily available to relieve the vacuum in the barrel contained the high speed spatter from the contact wound to his head, this was already driven toward the silencer tip as it exited from his skull. That is how his dna was found inside the rifle, his blood was taken by atmospheric pressure because it was in the air immediately available to the rifle barell, right at the tip of the silencer Robin rested his head against.

The clear science of Bain's suicide is apparent, nothing in science can contradict that he suicided. There was no gravity fed blood found in the rifle Robin killed himself with, no slow motion of his death and the expulsion of his blood from his skull, it was high speed spatter, capable of passage into the barrel and onto the curtains, not slowly falling drops, but blood and brain matter drawn in where he had rested his temple against the barrel. Bring out your science hang-bainers, enough of your crap and Bryan Bruce documentaries about photo-copiers. Front up you un-homed dogs of mixed breeds.

The great three.

One of whom is hiding,
another who is practising on the violin wearing glasses with false tear ducts - just for the morose and miserable affect,
but the last and probably most interesting - spilling the beans. I suspect his effort in spilling the beans is probably deliberate, but done in such a way to allow him to say it was a 'mistake.' We can expect more mistakes from him, and more confessions.

But don't worry other hate-siters, the truth won't come out. This is all just a joke, I'm just having a little fun. I thought it was fantastic when you targeted my family, so fantastic that I have all the energy I need to track down the lot of you and expose you before the law you purported to up hold. You struck at the principle of Justice and Justice will strike back, but don't believe me.

The meaning of creepy according to a twisted sister.

Have you Nana? I do not believe that I am anywhere near as fanciful as you, but i appreciate how you monitor and care about all who post in this thread. Creepy, but I am sure well meaning.

Quotegoldnkiwi (611 ) 4:58 pm, Sat 2 Apr #31980

Wanting to accept only facts and the decision of a fully informed Jury is apparently 'creepy' to old dickleberryhead.

However, cheating in the Mayoral elections and still losing three times,
being married to 2 dead donkeys,
being a member of a pedo's hate-site,
being a law graduate who would probably never be accepted to the Bar,
suing your own father,
bumping a message board thread that attempts to glorify a dead pedo,
thinking that losing is actually winning,
convincing yourself that you won something when in fact you lost,
saying 'no, if, buts or maybes' when in fact it's your own currency,
and generally being a dickhead, is not 'creepy.'
Sure.

Dickleberry's had a few sherries and flicked

her skirt (the size of super yacht sail) at the donkeys and decided to celebrate a loss as victory.....seem to be fewer and fewer, it is easier to keep the thread going when they post though, and their arguments being laughable convince noone. Quote goldnkiwi (611 ) 4:41 pm, Fri 1 Apr #31931...... Well dicklemembery, the only people that needed convincing were a Jury and they confirmed in record time, 5 times not guilty. How you could see that as laughable or as a victory might help others understand how you lost the mayoral contest a record 3 times in a row. But you didn't have to sue your own father did you dicklehead? No wonder no one wanted to vote for you.

Sorry folks, I'm unable to achieve para breaks

at the moment. I'm working on getting it fixed, when I do I'll tidy up and insert breaks in the last few blogs.

A plagiarist, a donkey and a mexican flap jack in serious conversation...

sophier8 wrote: After doing many hours of soul searching he reckons he didn't do it. Didn't Crikey die with Steve Irwin? Quote goldnkiwi (611 ) 12:09 pm, Thu 31 Mar #31926

goldnkiwi wrote: Didn't Crikey die with Steve Irwin? that was croccy. I found out some stuff today about an inveterate pro-DB poster. can't tell, but I wish Quote obook (174 ) 10:05 pm, Thu 31 Mar #31927

obook wrote: that was croccy. I found out some stuff today about an inveterate pro-DB poster. can't tell, but I wish oh go on tell us Quote peejeles (68 ) 10:07 pm, Thu 31 Mar #31928

peejeles wrote: oh go on tell us mum's the word, but there wouldn't be too many surprises Quote obook (174 ) 10:09 pm, Thu 31 Mar #31929

cybernana? te aroha? one of those loopies? Quote peejeles (68 ) 10:10 pm, Thu 31 Mar #31930

Grovelling Rodney Osook trying to whet the appetite of the donkey and Mexican mule, hinting at his latest stalking 'discoveries.' This is what they are folks, brainless losers and broken, beaten stalkers. I'd imagine fat tony osook (yes, the same person who claimed to be a forensic psychiatrist - I'm told a common delusion for some of the mentally afflicted) would have known that fresh dry straw would have been more up the generous alleys of the donkey and the ass, but no fatso couldn't stand to give food away, no no no, not food.

Typical hangbainers, characterised by dim-wittedness and the need for gossip and simple information while they pick their noses and flick the contents at one another. Ahh, a lawyer, a psychiatrist, and a psychiatric patient role playing, it might even be sweet if but if they weren't so ugly and smelly.