I think it is okay to reprint the following which was sent as a comment on the post 'Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.' Somebody has obviously picked it up off the internet and is not relevant to the case against Stockdale and others - apart from showing how deceitful Mike Stockdale, hate-site adminstrator, is...
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.":
What on earth next do these two not realise the matter is all over and their spin on events will be only that, SPIN.
Mike and Paul Warner Dobson are now friends.
· Add Paul as Friend
Paul Warner Dobson
Hi there. Thanks for adding me. One project I have been planning for a while is to write a film about the Bain Murders. I propose calling it '65 Every Street' and I believe it would be a good way of presenting the entire story for people to decide for themselves. Essentially there would be a different story going on and the murders are the background. I am thinking a Journalist and Lawyer who have recently broken up. The Lawyer is forced to take one side of the story while the Journalist is free to decide for herself upon what she sees and finds out. The Lawyer doesn't care about the truth but is simply being paid to win a case. While I have sorted out the main facts pretty well, I would need to make sure the Lawyer character could not be confused with a real character, as would the journalist. Are you familiar with any actual lawyers involved and their conduct of the trial? The story I suppose would be presented as half a court room drama with major 'flash backs' to actual seen. Naturally I would present what I might or might not think about it but present the facts and allow the viewer to decide. By keeping scrupulously to the actual facts I am sure legal action would be impossible. I also understand there are more facts that can be presented in a film than were presented in the actual court room. I am currently busy of something else, but when finished would like to start this and would be interested in finding an expert to check facts with. I understand you are such an expert? Woiuld you like to check my facts?
May 19 at 3:30pm
Mike Stockdale
Hullo Paul.I sort of like to think I am an expert,but I am still learning things.But the good part of being in a group is that you have a number of "experts" which means if there is something you don't know ,somebody else probably will.I do have a copy of the retrial transcript[I am not supposed to have it,but it was put up on a website for a couple of days and I managed to copy it down,along with quite a few other people,I might add.]I don't know any of the lawyers who were at the retrial,but I have spoken on the phone to ex detective Weir a few times.He has written a book,but he can't get it published,the would be publishers have told him that it can't be published until after the compensation claim is settled ,one way or the other.And that could be years away.But I would be quite happy to try and answer any questions,if they are to do with the evidence I reckon I would probably know as much as anyone.And because I have the transcript I do know how the lawyers operated.So don't hesitate to ask me anything,I am a retired bloke with plenty of time on my hands,I have sort of made the Bain case my hobby,I don't have any other hobbies.
May 19 at 3:50pm
I suspect this could be a letter to Stockdale by someone wanting to stroke his ego and get some info, more or less a 'staged' exchange as the writer would appear to know that Stockdale has an inflated ego problem. Either a staged event or one moron attracted to another moron - who knows.
The intersting things however are how Stockdale speaks freely about other matters which he has publicly lied about. Note, the claim by Stockdale about the trial transcript, which begs the question why he continued to lie about so many details of the trial when he knew the truth. And perhaps we read the true story about Milton Weirs book despite the claims made by Stockdale and Melanie White, another hate-site adminstrator. Of course Mike opens with the particularly modest statement.. 'I sort of like to think I am an expert' and among other things the omniscient statement 'And because I have the transcript I do know how the lawyers operated.'
Stockdale claims that 'the good part of being in a group is that you have a number of "experts" which all sounds very grand but perhaps he should have acknowledged the group are not so much experts because they've been caught stalking the Jury, misusing public message boards, intimidating and stalking members of the public - but perhaps he meant experts at being morons and getting caught.
Just on the first letter above, I find it hard to reconcile that anyone would imagine that the proposed title of a movie would be '65 Every Street' it beggars belief but groper Stockdale swallowed it, much like he swallowed the story (perhaps invented it, that David wasn't stripped searched on the morning of the murders) and perhaps the humdinger of them all - that David sought to be seen delivering papers so that people would know they (the papers) were actually in their letter boxes, Stockdale explained that this was because David was an 'actor' and we can assume (as with dumbo Stockdale and his girlfriends) that David would have needed to be seen delivering because the papers themselves were not testament to their delivery. Well, yes, precisely. The papers might have been delivered by another paper boy who'd strayed from his round, or been delivered by someone who for a perfectly reasonable reason that only dimwits would understand - good work Mike.
Anyway thanks to who ever sent this on, and it may also give anyone reading this an idea of the content and incriminating statements Stockdale forwarded to the District Court to 'prove' he isn't a stalker. There, there Mike. As the old saying goes ...'once a moron, always a moron.'
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Garth must be having kittens. Look what crusher said..
Staff in some New Zealand prisons are working in "Dickensian" conditions and they should be closed down, Corrections Minister Judith Collins says.
She's gone and wrecked everything after all Garth's, Rodney and David's good work in keeping mum about stealing passports and convictions of assault. What is the world coming to, Judith in one quick step has followed Bill English in realising the financial burden for taxpayers to operate a 'hang them high' Justice system that Garth and his buddies can watch wearing suspender belts while begging for a 3rd strike across the buttocks. Garth wants to give children a 3 strike rule, on their 3rd strike they get painting lessons from the bespectacled 'graffiti removing specialist' who Garth believes got a bad deal when imprisoned for manslaughter.
She's gone and wrecked everything after all Garth's, Rodney and David's good work in keeping mum about stealing passports and convictions of assault. What is the world coming to, Judith in one quick step has followed Bill English in realising the financial burden for taxpayers to operate a 'hang them high' Justice system that Garth and his buddies can watch wearing suspender belts while begging for a 3rd strike across the buttocks. Garth wants to give children a 3 strike rule, on their 3rd strike they get painting lessons from the bespectacled 'graffiti removing specialist' who Garth believes got a bad deal when imprisoned for manslaughter.
Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.
The following taken from the JFRB thread shows the continuing narration of defamatory harassment against Karam and Bain.
You must be acutely aware that members of the hate-site JFRB continue to use TM. The example below has no factual basis but for the average reader presents as highly significant and 'truthful.' But the hate-sites don't use TM boards to report truth but only to harass and defame others.
TM continually allow material to be printed that brings the Justice System into disrepute and allow 'reporting' of 'facts' that is probably Contempt of Court. In doing so TM reward messengers of hate with a free publishing venue. TM are sharply aware of this not only because of writs against TM for defamation, but also because TM are aware of writs against members of the hate-sites for not only defamation but also harassment and stalking. Some of the hate-site members have publicly confessed to stalking Jury members and others on TM boards such is their confidence that they are supported in their endeavours by TM who also happen to be likewise defendants in proceedings in the High Court.
You are also aware that members of the hate-sites have intimidated and frightened into silence some TM members who views on the Bain case they do not share.
I have no objection to the truth being debated on the boards, or opinions arising from the truth but that isn't and has never been the agenda of the hate-sites, theirs is to lie and poison.
If you will respond in no other way to this complaint, then just explain why you allow the same people to day in day out, year after year spread messages of hate on your site about the subject of the Bain killings/suicide?
Below you even have the report of a half-wit as to his own 'investigation' that however fails to deal with the actual evidence given at the trial. Meanwhile William Rodie (Sophie) continues in the same vein as when he posted as kirkmaiden and others, just lie after lie, after lie. Do TM and yourself a favour and get rid of the bullshitting scumbags who bump the thread in an effort to promote redemption for a person considered by many (including myself) as a paedophile who killed his family. Most importantly David Bain was found not guilty 2 years ago following a trial which has not been contested, TM or the hate-sites are not elevated about the Justice System but must abide to it and at the very least raise criticisms that are researched, and true or defendable.
steve1958 wrote:
The whole defense was based solely on hearsay's . Even their own investigation found that Robin couldn't have used that rifle to commit suicide .
You are right of course Steve the defence selected not to use the evidence and opinion "requested by a member of Davids Bains defence" from the Victorian Police Forensic Science Department that concluded Robin had not committed suicide.
Edited by sophier8 at 10:54 am, Sun 5 Jun
Quote
sophier8 (8 ) 10:50 am, Sun 5 Jun #32316
Yours etc
You must be acutely aware that members of the hate-site JFRB continue to use TM. The example below has no factual basis but for the average reader presents as highly significant and 'truthful.' But the hate-sites don't use TM boards to report truth but only to harass and defame others.
TM continually allow material to be printed that brings the Justice System into disrepute and allow 'reporting' of 'facts' that is probably Contempt of Court. In doing so TM reward messengers of hate with a free publishing venue. TM are sharply aware of this not only because of writs against TM for defamation, but also because TM are aware of writs against members of the hate-sites for not only defamation but also harassment and stalking. Some of the hate-site members have publicly confessed to stalking Jury members and others on TM boards such is their confidence that they are supported in their endeavours by TM who also happen to be likewise defendants in proceedings in the High Court.
You are also aware that members of the hate-sites have intimidated and frightened into silence some TM members who views on the Bain case they do not share.
I have no objection to the truth being debated on the boards, or opinions arising from the truth but that isn't and has never been the agenda of the hate-sites, theirs is to lie and poison.
If you will respond in no other way to this complaint, then just explain why you allow the same people to day in day out, year after year spread messages of hate on your site about the subject of the Bain killings/suicide?
Below you even have the report of a half-wit as to his own 'investigation' that however fails to deal with the actual evidence given at the trial. Meanwhile William Rodie (Sophie) continues in the same vein as when he posted as kirkmaiden and others, just lie after lie, after lie. Do TM and yourself a favour and get rid of the bullshitting scumbags who bump the thread in an effort to promote redemption for a person considered by many (including myself) as a paedophile who killed his family. Most importantly David Bain was found not guilty 2 years ago following a trial which has not been contested, TM or the hate-sites are not elevated about the Justice System but must abide to it and at the very least raise criticisms that are researched, and true or defendable.
steve1958 wrote:
The whole defense was based solely on hearsay's . Even their own investigation found that Robin couldn't have used that rifle to commit suicide .
You are right of course Steve the defence selected not to use the evidence and opinion "requested by a member of Davids Bains defence" from the Victorian Police Forensic Science Department that concluded Robin had not committed suicide.
Edited by sophier8 at 10:54 am, Sun 5 Jun
Quote
sophier8 (8 ) 10:50 am, Sun 5 Jun #32316
Yours etc
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Racheal Dickleberry, having considered for the 48,000th time if she
might run in the local elections again, under an assumed name 'Racheal Dickleberry Dumberry Head', has concluded that a TV show, that resulted in a letter - the contents of which were of insufficient merit, standard of proof to even be considered by a Court, is conclusive and persuasive evidence of something - and she's right. It's proof that she is a moron, not that any proof was needed but she's consistent in wanting to prove what an idiot she is so that she will be famous and her poems to dead donkeys might be published somewhere other than an outhouse wall.
Is not the statement made by Young regarding the set up of the van an untruth, the claim of selling the photocopier in one of 'two years' convenient and ..............and.............-
.surely the purpose of Young's testimony from the defence point of view was to paint a picture that Robin was unkempt, drunken and had lost the plot which would back up suggestions of depression, which would then suggest that he murdered the family. Tenuous at best but then I guess they had to take what they could get. So as we see the threads unravelling of what the defence would claim as their evidence against Robin more and more should unravel. As for Bryan Bruce's exposes, he is scrutinised more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.
Quote
goldnkiwi (612 ) 11:06 am, Sat 4 Jun #32311
Is not the statement made by Young regarding the set up of the van an untruth, the claim of selling the photocopier in one of 'two years' convenient and ..............and.............-
Now I guess that all makes sense to somebody with a befuddled brain, eating too much straw and living with donkeys - but in reality it shows how stuffed the deadbeats pedo fiddlers from the hate-sites have become. Their political aspirations gone, there petition deader than the donkeys in Rach's poems, their sites shut down, two of the 'camp' leaders in Court and lead to the startling final line from Rach Dicklehead....
As for Bryan Bruce's exposes, he is scrutinised more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.
Is Rach saying that Bryan Bruce exposed himself? And was scrutinised 'more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.' She can only surely mean that Bryan was scrutinised in his exposure and she claims stood 'up well' maybe as well as one on Rach's current donkey husbands. Well, what do you know. No wonder Ralph Taylor and Bill Rodie were excited.
Is not the statement made by Young regarding the set up of the van an untruth, the claim of selling the photocopier in one of 'two years' convenient and ..............and.............-
.surely the purpose of Young's testimony from the defence point of view was to paint a picture that Robin was unkempt, drunken and had lost the plot which would back up suggestions of depression, which would then suggest that he murdered the family. Tenuous at best but then I guess they had to take what they could get. So as we see the threads unravelling of what the defence would claim as their evidence against Robin more and more should unravel. As for Bryan Bruce's exposes, he is scrutinised more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.
Quote
goldnkiwi (612 ) 11:06 am, Sat 4 Jun #32311
Is not the statement made by Young regarding the set up of the van an untruth, the claim of selling the photocopier in one of 'two years' convenient and ..............and.............-
Now I guess that all makes sense to somebody with a befuddled brain, eating too much straw and living with donkeys - but in reality it shows how stuffed the deadbeats pedo fiddlers from the hate-sites have become. Their political aspirations gone, there petition deader than the donkeys in Rach's poems, their sites shut down, two of the 'camp' leaders in Court and lead to the startling final line from Rach Dicklehead....
As for Bryan Bruce's exposes, he is scrutinised more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.
Is Rach saying that Bryan Bruce exposed himself? And was scrutinised 'more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.' She can only surely mean that Bryan was scrutinised in his exposure and she claims stood 'up well' maybe as well as one on Rach's current donkey husbands. Well, what do you know. No wonder Ralph Taylor and Bill Rodie were excited.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Two fiddler bros, Ralph Taylor and Bill Rodie have got it sussed...
jmhb51 wrote:
Bryan Bruce has a letter sent to him by the Police acknowledging that Young's testimony included 'untruths'.
You are implying that the Police are spreading untruths and disinformation. I don't think TM like posters defaming the Police.
I suggest you check the terms and conditions of posting on this site.
Brian Bruce showed that Robin was not linked to the murders by any evidence, he also pointed out possible untruths in Young's testimony, now after 10 months of investigations the police have confirmed Bruce's suspicions.
Edited by sophier8 at 12:19 am, Fri 3 Jun
Quote
sophier8 (8 ) 12:17 am, Fri 3 Jun #32309
jmhb51 wrote:
Why did Darryl Young give untruthful evidence? Why would the defence let him?
What did Darryl Young gain? 15 minutes of fame?
Well only he himself can answer that. Possibly the defence itself may have ideas. Am sure that the Defence and he would be open to a judicial enquiry or take up Bryan Bruce's offer or a re do of the Investigator Special to try and explain himself more clearly.
Quote
jeeves-50 (4 ) 10:33 am, Fri 3 Jun #32310
Old Bill Rodie, disguised as his daughter again, asks why Daryl Young gave untruthful evidence when there is no evidence that he did give give untruthful evidence apart from a letter without enough substance or content to take to Court. Meanwhile dic..ead Ralph believes the answer might lie in a TV programme and that people are in someway responsible to a tv reporter and not the Justice system. That is why Bill and Ralph are such sickoes, they can't distinguish between fact and fiction, they think that Justice exists in a parallel universe called Television, where you tuck up on a cold night and listen to a droaning idiot re-invent the wheel while hanging off everyword written, and tightly scripted as for any TV drama, and you think (in the case of Taylor and Rodie) that everything is fine in googaa land for the fiddler bros who stick up for a dead one of their number. How sicko. They're both a pair of defaming pedo-pals who it seems along with nina_s and jimbo the elephant need to be sued, just so they can work out that they are interfering in real people's lives, stalking and harassing from behind a silver screen - I don't think it will do.
Bryan Bruce has a letter sent to him by the Police acknowledging that Young's testimony included 'untruths'.
You are implying that the Police are spreading untruths and disinformation. I don't think TM like posters defaming the Police.
I suggest you check the terms and conditions of posting on this site.
Brian Bruce showed that Robin was not linked to the murders by any evidence, he also pointed out possible untruths in Young's testimony, now after 10 months of investigations the police have confirmed Bruce's suspicions.
Edited by sophier8 at 12:19 am, Fri 3 Jun
Quote
sophier8 (8 ) 12:17 am, Fri 3 Jun #32309
jmhb51 wrote:
Why did Darryl Young give untruthful evidence? Why would the defence let him?
What did Darryl Young gain? 15 minutes of fame?
Well only he himself can answer that. Possibly the defence itself may have ideas. Am sure that the Defence and he would be open to a judicial enquiry or take up Bryan Bruce's offer or a re do of the Investigator Special to try and explain himself more clearly.
Quote
jeeves-50 (4 ) 10:33 am, Fri 3 Jun #32310
Old Bill Rodie, disguised as his daughter again, asks why Daryl Young gave untruthful evidence when there is no evidence that he did give give untruthful evidence apart from a letter without enough substance or content to take to Court. Meanwhile dic..ead Ralph believes the answer might lie in a TV programme and that people are in someway responsible to a tv reporter and not the Justice system. That is why Bill and Ralph are such sickoes, they can't distinguish between fact and fiction, they think that Justice exists in a parallel universe called Television, where you tuck up on a cold night and listen to a droaning idiot re-invent the wheel while hanging off everyword written, and tightly scripted as for any TV drama, and you think (in the case of Taylor and Rodie) that everything is fine in googaa land for the fiddler bros who stick up for a dead one of their number. How sicko. They're both a pair of defaming pedo-pals who it seems along with nina_s and jimbo the elephant need to be sued, just so they can work out that they are interfering in real people's lives, stalking and harassing from behind a silver screen - I don't think it will do.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
nina_s (who would love to be mrs nina_s - if she could find someone able to put up with her body odour)
seems to have a rottweiler attached to her rather large rump. She's been telling nellies (oh what a nellie_nina she is) and a friendly old rotty has clamped her bum right between the two resident crocodiles that have been clamped on since her last trip up the Murray River.
nina_s wrote:
...
Young stated he went to the doors at the back and Robin came out of them...
nina_s wrote:
You're so brave asking TM posters to sustantiate claims made by the police aren't you?
I am asking you to substantiate your claim that Daryl Young stated Robin came out of the back doors of the van - because it was you that made it.
You now seem to be implying that the police made the same claim. Can you point to any evidence of the police claiming Young stated Robin came out of the back doors either ?
Edited by gwimweeper at 12:51 pm, Wed 1 Jun
Quote
gwimweeper (7 ) 12:44 pm, Wed 1 Jun #43
The qwimreeper is unwilling to let nina_concertina bum tell any more nellies, probably because he's reached his wit's end because she has been getting away with it for years. But hold on, right now she's scouring the earth to prove she isn't a liar, don't expect her back this century and wave the crocodiles goodbye. Bye bye old crocs, it's been good to know ya - don't forget to plaque your teeth.
nina_s wrote:
...
Young stated he went to the doors at the back and Robin came out of them...
nina_s wrote:
You're so brave asking TM posters to sustantiate claims made by the police aren't you?
I am asking you to substantiate your claim that Daryl Young stated Robin came out of the back doors of the van - because it was you that made it.
You now seem to be implying that the police made the same claim. Can you point to any evidence of the police claiming Young stated Robin came out of the back doors either ?
Edited by gwimweeper at 12:51 pm, Wed 1 Jun
Quote
gwimweeper (7 ) 12:44 pm, Wed 1 Jun #43
The qwimreeper is unwilling to let nina_concertina bum tell any more nellies, probably because he's reached his wit's end because she has been getting away with it for years. But hold on, right now she's scouring the earth to prove she isn't a liar, don't expect her back this century and wave the crocodiles goodbye. Bye bye old crocs, it's been good to know ya - don't forget to plaque your teeth.
Kookyheadcase-pal....
said,
In essence, and in my opinion, Robin Bain was framed for 5 brutal murders, and the real murderer, a person who embodies the worst of "psychopath" is free.
Quote
kulkkulbelle (399 ) 12:06 pm, Wed 1 Jun #41
Thread title
'Untruthful evidence' in Bain case
Post number(s)
The post number is shown to the right of the post date.
I'm reporting this because
Choose... The post includes abusive and/or defamatory comments.
Quite clearly this habitual defamer of Karam and Bain is implying the 5th person is David Bain and that he guilty of murder. There is no conviction to support that, therefore this is a defamatory statement and ought to be removed back to the funny farm along with the poster.
Old kooky has got her 'in my opinion' crucifix held up to enable her defamation, without sanction she hopes. The problem is for old kooky is that her opinion is that of a moron and therefore is not a defence when compared to the decision of a fully informed Jury. Kook's these days ain't what they use to be, and what they use to be wasn't that flash anyway.
In essence, and in my opinion, Robin Bain was framed for 5 brutal murders, and the real murderer, a person who embodies the worst of "psychopath" is free.
Quote
kulkkulbelle (399 ) 12:06 pm, Wed 1 Jun #41
Thread title
'Untruthful evidence' in Bain case
Post number(s)
The post number is shown to the right of the post date.
I'm reporting this because
Choose... The post includes abusive and/or defamatory comments.
Quite clearly this habitual defamer of Karam and Bain is implying the 5th person is David Bain and that he guilty of murder. There is no conviction to support that, therefore this is a defamatory statement and ought to be removed back to the funny farm along with the poster.
Old kooky has got her 'in my opinion' crucifix held up to enable her defamation, without sanction she hopes. The problem is for old kooky is that her opinion is that of a moron and therefore is not a defence when compared to the decision of a fully informed Jury. Kook's these days ain't what they use to be, and what they use to be wasn't that flash anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)