Lindsay R. Kennard
I haven't posted much on TM but yes it has gone nasty just a bit of the rails, I simply struggle with how some can believe what they post it so off the scale, its starting at the other side again. It was just a bit of light relief for me as I have worked extensively on R v Watson but a nut case arrived on that with wild and wacky scenarios, but have stepped back at Chris Watsons request.
about 7 months ago · Report
I as far as possible avoid the Scott Watson Thread as there is an ongoing police investigation into breaches of suppression involved in some of the posts made. The real strange thing is Trademe will not remove them even though they face prosecution for contempt as well and complaints have been made to Trademe by the people named, Keith and Chris. Also Chris asked me to not reply to things there as things are moving but moving slowly, I would have though a conviction for contempt of court would be serious for a media company. So I can only surmise that the threat of a defamation where there is at best a 50/50 chance is more terrifying than the 100% chance of conviction if the Solicitor General authorises charges of contempt or if the police decide to lay informations on breaches of suppression of names and evidence. There are some 16 breaches none have been removed. Explain to me why?
by linz4me on 05:27 pm, 02 Aug 2010
wrote:
If this thread bothers you so much why do you read it?, is it just an excuse to belittle and bully the OP? I just don't understand why people read this thread and turn negative
I don't read it but I do respect the right to privacy of Chris and Bev Watson who have tried everything to stop RdB posting information from stolen files. This has been doing on at various sites for close on 10 years. He has been contacting the Hope family with screwball ideas they, the Smarts and the Watson have been at times traumatised by the hairbrained things he has done and said. An illegal copy was made of a Department of Courts CD was made which had been legitimately with a third person with the stipulation no copies were to be made as the CD contains full files of suppressed names and documents from Scott's trial. The one thing RdB does not have it the information about which names or files are suppressed. He has been asked time and time again to stop using the material as it breaches suppressions and Copyright. He says he answers to a higher Authority God, quite frankly that is a load of heifer dust as the Authority he claims is not in the habit of requiring the law to be broken in fact exactly the opposite There is a command to obey those in authority over you in the world. I have taken the time to explain so you can understand why some get very upset at the continual refusal to abide by Chris Watson's request to all stop posting about the matter at this time as inquiries are under way after the GG petition, there are at least two IPCA inquiries under way, Chris just does not have the time to keep looking on line for breaches of suppression as he is the one ultimately responsible to ensure the CD was protected and he could face criminal charges as well. Not all publicity is good publicity.
by linz4me on 12:10 pm, 07 Aug 2010
By my count that's at least 3 times Kennard was asked to shut his yap - because it was doing no good, but he had to keep going showing what a great 'supporter' he was and impress others with insider knowledge and 'lawyering.'
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The honesty of Kennard captured in his own imagination...
I haven't worried about much in these threads. but in the Watson threads I always quoted the official document information came from.
I have been amused to see the quoting of 'official facts' most often with out citing a source so nothing can be verified. Is it obvious some have extensive access to source documents but the validity of those documents is far from clear while they are not identified. I have my own reasons for believing the original verdict was correct and nothing since has altered that. The Court of Appeal and Privy Council agreed with that verdict as did the second Appeal Court. Unfortunately the third Court of Appeal made findings of fact it was not entitled to and we have ended up with the fiasco that now prevails. We have only second and third and forth hand hearsay evidence of Laniet alleging incest. There is simply no credible corroboration of the allegations. so they are quite simply that allegations not facts. Laniet unfortunately was the source of the lack of corroberation in her allegations in her propensity to exaggerate her life in PNG.
The last factor I struggle with very hard are the so called witnesses who have come forward in reply to advertisements etc. over the years. The psychology and research into memory and memory retrieval, would caste considerable doubt on the veracity on the accuracy of the memories of many witnesses. To be clear I am not saying these people are making up memory deliberately, rather that time, retrieval and positive reinforcement of errors. It leads to false memory, but it is honestly held false memory and it is far more common that some believe.
I very rarely state something as a fact unless I can reference it to a source.
by linz4me on 01:03 pm, 04 Jul 2010
I have to ask, do you actually know what a fact is? Something is not a fact simply because you say it is. you expect others to take all you say is fact, when in reality it is only your interpretation of given circumstances.
by linz4me on 12:56 pm, 04 Jul 2010
by linz4me on 06:54 pm, 05 Jul 2010
Here is Kennard almost pious about his need to be accurate and post only the truth, yet in recent memory he has extensively claimed David Bain was not strip searched and had no intimate samples taken - more on that later. But an interesting discipline Kennard uses to strengthen what he always knew were lies and which he invariably knew would hurt David Bain. The truth was never going to hurt David, it was liars like Stockdale, Taylor, Fox and Kennard that would do that.
I have been amused to see the quoting of 'official facts' most often with out citing a source so nothing can be verified. Is it obvious some have extensive access to source documents but the validity of those documents is far from clear while they are not identified. I have my own reasons for believing the original verdict was correct and nothing since has altered that. The Court of Appeal and Privy Council agreed with that verdict as did the second Appeal Court. Unfortunately the third Court of Appeal made findings of fact it was not entitled to and we have ended up with the fiasco that now prevails. We have only second and third and forth hand hearsay evidence of Laniet alleging incest. There is simply no credible corroboration of the allegations. so they are quite simply that allegations not facts. Laniet unfortunately was the source of the lack of corroberation in her allegations in her propensity to exaggerate her life in PNG.
The last factor I struggle with very hard are the so called witnesses who have come forward in reply to advertisements etc. over the years. The psychology and research into memory and memory retrieval, would caste considerable doubt on the veracity on the accuracy of the memories of many witnesses. To be clear I am not saying these people are making up memory deliberately, rather that time, retrieval and positive reinforcement of errors. It leads to false memory, but it is honestly held false memory and it is far more common that some believe.
I very rarely state something as a fact unless I can reference it to a source.
by linz4me on 01:03 pm, 04 Jul 2010
I have to ask, do you actually know what a fact is? Something is not a fact simply because you say it is. you expect others to take all you say is fact, when in reality it is only your interpretation of given circumstances.
by linz4me on 12:56 pm, 04 Jul 2010
by linz4me on 06:54 pm, 05 Jul 2010
Here is Kennard almost pious about his need to be accurate and post only the truth, yet in recent memory he has extensively claimed David Bain was not strip searched and had no intimate samples taken - more on that later. But an interesting discipline Kennard uses to strengthen what he always knew were lies and which he invariably knew would hurt David Bain. The truth was never going to hurt David, it was liars like Stockdale, Taylor, Fox and Kennard that would do that.
For those interested, there have been some promising developments on the Kennard - Stockdale combo.
Though obviously there was an overall pattern these two hate-siters and their fellows used, the specifics of the strip search, intimate tests, blood in barrel were probably the most important. The ongoing attack on the strip search and intimate tests was critical to the hate-siters but not to the truth. They needed the strip search and intimate tests not to have taken place for a number of reasons, foremost it allowed the scratches to have been on David the morning of the murders when plainly they were not, also 'allowing' the presumption he fought with Stephen.
The main (surviving) proponents of the lies about the strip search on TM, Stockdale and Kennard, left a fairly clumsy trail (thanks fellas) to follow. I can only suspect that it is arrogance, or lack of wit, they made them put at risk their entire cause when the probability was that they'd be caught out. With them being caught out it demonstrates the cauldron of hate from where the defamation has arisen, the stalking likewise, and the deliberation misinformation in order to persecute others. Most readers will understand the wider implications of this exposure, both for the damages that can be claimed, in that the defamation was deliberate and intended and based on untruths and in the wider context the continuing persecution of David Bain by these people.
Opinion doesn't allow enhancement, nothing allows enhancement of 'facts' which are not true and which are only used as a weapon against others. That is foremost the hate-sites failure, they had no intention of becoming informed - they started from a particular ill-informed position and used that to attack the Judiciary, a Jury and so on. Another and more obvious failure was not to recognise the incompetence of the messengers - a rag tag bunch of idiots drooling at the mouth over imagined lynchings.
But for now to reflect upon, that two of the main culprits are corralled, encircled by their own hate and lies. Two others consider another hearing in a few weeks and a far greater number sit on the edges of their seats, full of bravado one minute before considering the word 'enjoined' the next.
The main (surviving) proponents of the lies about the strip search on TM, Stockdale and Kennard, left a fairly clumsy trail (thanks fellas) to follow. I can only suspect that it is arrogance, or lack of wit, they made them put at risk their entire cause when the probability was that they'd be caught out. With them being caught out it demonstrates the cauldron of hate from where the defamation has arisen, the stalking likewise, and the deliberation misinformation in order to persecute others. Most readers will understand the wider implications of this exposure, both for the damages that can be claimed, in that the defamation was deliberate and intended and based on untruths and in the wider context the continuing persecution of David Bain by these people.
Opinion doesn't allow enhancement, nothing allows enhancement of 'facts' which are not true and which are only used as a weapon against others. That is foremost the hate-sites failure, they had no intention of becoming informed - they started from a particular ill-informed position and used that to attack the Judiciary, a Jury and so on. Another and more obvious failure was not to recognise the incompetence of the messengers - a rag tag bunch of idiots drooling at the mouth over imagined lynchings.
But for now to reflect upon, that two of the main culprits are corralled, encircled by their own hate and lies. Two others consider another hearing in a few weeks and a far greater number sit on the edges of their seats, full of bravado one minute before considering the word 'enjoined' the next.
Monday, January 17, 2011
More bs from Lindsay 'Gurnard' Kennard, a hate-siter...
sophier8 wrote:
Where is the evidence that there was any intimate swabs taken?
An intimate swap is a wipe taken from the inside of the mouth for DNA purposes It is just like a cotton bud but longer and the wipe on the inside of the cheek captures skin cell and saliva but of which contain DNA unique to the person. The Police Surgeon took it as a normal part of his check to match with DNA from the crime scene and was by then a standard procedure at a homicide.
Edited by linz4me at 8:33 pm, Mon 11 Oct
That's a lot bullcraping Gurnard.
A whole lot, over a long period of time.
I know you are a lawyer and all that, and have done some 'lawyering' as you put it, but how much more bullcrap than this above do you think would be needed to show that you are rotten, defamatory speaking, persecutor with a gurnard up your bottom.
If anyone ever took an intimate sample from your bottom as an example, it would return gurnard dna. That's why I call your Gurnard. Another thing I call you is a pedo-accused, because you posted about that. I've also said you're a drunk pill popper swilling in the trough because you've said you're a drinker, and that you pop an enormous amount of pills every day.
All in Gurnard, you deserve a variety on names, the options of which could keep a team of inventive name callers going for months. But I don't know any inventive name-callers Gurnard, I ain't that flash - in fact I rent my chicken coop out to Goodnewsguy but he never pays any rent.
But you have to hand to Goodnewsguy he's quick sometimes, especially to get out of things, quicker than you dolt brain. He would be happy to call you something like 'Gurnard fish sticking out bottom Kennard, a bs artist Lawyer Queens Counsel' - or 'fishbum' for short.
Where is the evidence that there was any intimate swabs taken?
An intimate swap is a wipe taken from the inside of the mouth for DNA purposes It is just like a cotton bud but longer and the wipe on the inside of the cheek captures skin cell and saliva but of which contain DNA unique to the person. The Police Surgeon took it as a normal part of his check to match with DNA from the crime scene and was by then a standard procedure at a homicide.
Edited by linz4me at 8:33 pm, Mon 11 Oct
That's a lot bullcraping Gurnard.
A whole lot, over a long period of time.
I know you are a lawyer and all that, and have done some 'lawyering' as you put it, but how much more bullcrap than this above do you think would be needed to show that you are rotten, defamatory speaking, persecutor with a gurnard up your bottom.
If anyone ever took an intimate sample from your bottom as an example, it would return gurnard dna. That's why I call your Gurnard. Another thing I call you is a pedo-accused, because you posted about that. I've also said you're a drunk pill popper swilling in the trough because you've said you're a drinker, and that you pop an enormous amount of pills every day.
All in Gurnard, you deserve a variety on names, the options of which could keep a team of inventive name callers going for months. But I don't know any inventive name-callers Gurnard, I ain't that flash - in fact I rent my chicken coop out to Goodnewsguy but he never pays any rent.
But you have to hand to Goodnewsguy he's quick sometimes, especially to get out of things, quicker than you dolt brain. He would be happy to call you something like 'Gurnard fish sticking out bottom Kennard, a bs artist Lawyer Queens Counsel' - or 'fishbum' for short.
Look, Kennard (Gurnard) caught out bsing again.
No wonder Scott Watson's father told him to shut up. Who could blame him, having a lying idiot on your team is no help.....ask Kenty baby.
linz4me wrote:
Ah you have returned to "show the love" As to my source that is I'm afraid "for my eyes only" but is very reliable and in forensics, that plus a touch of common sense. There was never any thought of a sexual element to the deaths so no need to examine David for evidence of sexual activity. From memory he had showered after the paper run and before the washing, but I am happy to be corrected. Let me make it very very clear, I DO NOT believe there was a sexual element to the deaths. Genital swabbing is done in cases where sexual offences are suspected or where the investigation is into a sexual violation as female DNA maybe found linking the suspect to the Complainant. Finally the oral swab that is the least invasive method of obtaining DNA, the skin of the inner cheek is very soft and readily returns skin cells for testing, the other method is by blood sample.
Even Scott Watson whom police acknowledge they were intending to charge with rape and murder only ever gave a blood test
I accept it was eight days later, but there is no evidence Scott had showered or bathed in the day,
We are not discussing Scott Watson. Did your 'source' or 'common sense' tell you this, then? Because neither of them are reliable sources.It seems that first morning they were certainly looking at David as suspect, and in a sexual context.
The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
Edited by cybernana at 6:59 pm, Mon 17 Jan
Quote
cybernana (593 ) 6:58 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31413
How odd for those following this exchange that Trevor William Fox (luckytrader) arrived immediately to discuss the subject of penis's.
linz4me wrote:
Ah you have returned to "show the love" As to my source that is I'm afraid "for my eyes only" but is very reliable and in forensics, that plus a touch of common sense. There was never any thought of a sexual element to the deaths so no need to examine David for evidence of sexual activity. From memory he had showered after the paper run and before the washing, but I am happy to be corrected. Let me make it very very clear, I DO NOT believe there was a sexual element to the deaths. Genital swabbing is done in cases where sexual offences are suspected or where the investigation is into a sexual violation as female DNA maybe found linking the suspect to the Complainant. Finally the oral swab that is the least invasive method of obtaining DNA, the skin of the inner cheek is very soft and readily returns skin cells for testing, the other method is by blood sample.
Even Scott Watson whom police acknowledge they were intending to charge with rape and murder only ever gave a blood test
I accept it was eight days later, but there is no evidence Scott had showered or bathed in the day,
We are not discussing Scott Watson. Did your 'source' or 'common sense' tell you this, then? Because neither of them are reliable sources.It seems that first morning they were certainly looking at David as suspect, and in a sexual context.
The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
Edited by cybernana at 6:59 pm, Mon 17 Jan
Quote
cybernana (593 ) 6:58 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31413
How odd for those following this exchange that Trevor William Fox (luckytrader) arrived immediately to discuss the subject of penis's.
Hey Stockdale, you've gone a little quiet.
Pressure getting to you?
Don't worry there's more to come Mike a lot more, so too for Gurnard (Lindsay Kennard.)
Did Ralphie bail out or was he pushed, I have a feeling he'll be co-operating in his own escape from you Stockdale. I reckon he can't handle the pressure either, now that everyone knows that you and Kennard have based your persecution on lies.
If the situation requires, I'll file my papers against you and Gurnard in Auckland, just to make it easy for you to travel. Shucks Mike, I know you must think I'm considerate but I'm only trying to help. Maybe we could drag in Trevor William Fox, he's another liar, and Deb Coates and DCameron they've all lied about evidence just like you Stockdale.
But I'm only joking aren't I Mike, I wouldn't dare would I?
The paperwork is shaping up well, I'm keeping it simple and not going for complexity. Simple as Mike, but I won't do it will I?
Don't worry there's more to come Mike a lot more, so too for Gurnard (Lindsay Kennard.)
Did Ralphie bail out or was he pushed, I have a feeling he'll be co-operating in his own escape from you Stockdale. I reckon he can't handle the pressure either, now that everyone knows that you and Kennard have based your persecution on lies.
If the situation requires, I'll file my papers against you and Gurnard in Auckland, just to make it easy for you to travel. Shucks Mike, I know you must think I'm considerate but I'm only trying to help. Maybe we could drag in Trevor William Fox, he's another liar, and Deb Coates and DCameron they've all lied about evidence just like you Stockdale.
But I'm only joking aren't I Mike, I wouldn't dare would I?
The paperwork is shaping up well, I'm keeping it simple and not going for complexity. Simple as Mike, but I won't do it will I?
Don't worry Stockdale, you're far from forgotten.
I am happy to give you a reasonable amount of time to deal with my complaint dated the 15/1/11 though my position remains unchanged as to seeking legal remedy if required because I have a very strong case which I believe is in the Public Interest. As a matter of note I have now been able to research the 'source' of Stockdale's 'evidence' and it is bogus, absolutely untrue.
In the meantime and separately, the following is entirely offensive to Joe Karam and the defence team and more particularly to David Bain himself. That these disgusting comments should be aired on a public message board by the administrator of a hate-site currently being sued for many allegations of defamation on the same matter beggars belief. Please disabuse yourself from any thought that Stockdale is anything more than a liar intent on persecuting David Bain and others by the use of lies and in other way possible.
This 'person' has been subject to a complaint to the Police for harassment of another TM member and that this further and public harassment should have a place on TM message boards is frankly unbelievable.
I have already provided you with evidence (and the offer of more detailed evidence should you require) showing that Stockdale has deliberately posted false information on TM boards 100s of times in order to persuade public opinion against David Bain being compensated, and that in part, that also includes defaming at length Joe Karam.
In this disgusting piece below Stockdale prints that either Joe Karam is not aware of the evidence of a particular witness (which Stockdale, the idiot, thinks is conclusive but which was rejected by a Jury as material to their deliberation) or, as by implication, that Karam does not care and is therefore dishonest.
As you will note the quote is cut and pasted by Stockdale and is in fact an original quote attributable to him.
As always I have all the information cached and on hand regarding this or any earlier complaint, particularly mine of the 15/1/11.
I am looking forward to your prompt response on these matters.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=132231&p=312&topic=7
supersleuth wrote:
So what does Karam think of David's aunt's evidence,I wonder. I mean,you have to say it is quite compelling. Karam would have known not too long after he started looking into the case that David Bain had told his lawyer that he was going to attest to wearing his mother's glasses.And Mrs Clark's evidence was presented at the Court of Appeal hearings. So he would have known about David wearing his mother's glasses fairly early on. I mean,it is obvious to me that Jan Clark is telling the truth. David eyes were troubling him,and she went to get up and fetch his glasses,and he told her his were in being repaired and that he had been wearing an old pair of his mother's glasses. They weren't perfect ,he said,but they got him by. So I would like to ask Mr Karam a couple of questions? "Do you accept that David Bain was wearing his mother's glasses on the weekend of the murders?" If he anwers yes,as I feel ,realistically he must,then I would ask him "Then isn't it reasonable to suggest that they were damaged because David was in a struggle with Stephen,given the fact that the lens that was missing from those glasses was found in Stephen's room?".
!!!!
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:03 am, Mon 17 Jan #15562
In the meantime and separately, the following is entirely offensive to Joe Karam and the defence team and more particularly to David Bain himself. That these disgusting comments should be aired on a public message board by the administrator of a hate-site currently being sued for many allegations of defamation on the same matter beggars belief. Please disabuse yourself from any thought that Stockdale is anything more than a liar intent on persecuting David Bain and others by the use of lies and in other way possible.
This 'person' has been subject to a complaint to the Police for harassment of another TM member and that this further and public harassment should have a place on TM message boards is frankly unbelievable.
I have already provided you with evidence (and the offer of more detailed evidence should you require) showing that Stockdale has deliberately posted false information on TM boards 100s of times in order to persuade public opinion against David Bain being compensated, and that in part, that also includes defaming at length Joe Karam.
In this disgusting piece below Stockdale prints that either Joe Karam is not aware of the evidence of a particular witness (which Stockdale, the idiot, thinks is conclusive but which was rejected by a Jury as material to their deliberation) or, as by implication, that Karam does not care and is therefore dishonest.
As you will note the quote is cut and pasted by Stockdale and is in fact an original quote attributable to him.
As always I have all the information cached and on hand regarding this or any earlier complaint, particularly mine of the 15/1/11.
I am looking forward to your prompt response on these matters.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=132231&p=312&topic=7
supersleuth wrote:
So what does Karam think of David's aunt's evidence,I wonder. I mean,you have to say it is quite compelling. Karam would have known not too long after he started looking into the case that David Bain had told his lawyer that he was going to attest to wearing his mother's glasses.And Mrs Clark's evidence was presented at the Court of Appeal hearings. So he would have known about David wearing his mother's glasses fairly early on. I mean,it is obvious to me that Jan Clark is telling the truth. David eyes were troubling him,and she went to get up and fetch his glasses,and he told her his were in being repaired and that he had been wearing an old pair of his mother's glasses. They weren't perfect ,he said,but they got him by. So I would like to ask Mr Karam a couple of questions? "Do you accept that David Bain was wearing his mother's glasses on the weekend of the murders?" If he anwers yes,as I feel ,realistically he must,then I would ask him "Then isn't it reasonable to suggest that they were damaged because David was in a struggle with Stephen,given the fact that the lens that was missing from those glasses was found in Stephen's room?".
!!!!
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:03 am, Mon 17 Jan #15562
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)