TVNZ, Rogue Jurors Campaign Exposed

Update: The second Juror, the NZ Bain Trial

Regular followers of this blog will be well aware that the Team @ Lauda Finem deplore injustice and delight in exposing those who participate and or in anyway contribute to injustice or with malice conspire to harm others.

Last Sunday New Zealand’s state owned broadcaster Television New Zealand was responsible for just that, a cynical and malicious attempt to harm David Bain and his champion Joe Karam.

The vehicle used was the broadcasters weekly program, SUNDAY, presented by Miriama Kamo. One of the programs Journo’s,  Janet McIntyre, and it’s producers, Chris Cooke and Max Adams, threw together an episode that we are loath to call journalism.

Composite mugshot one: TVNZ’s “the third juror”

Subsequent to posting our article, Public confidence in NZ Courts on the verge of collapse: rogue juror’s out of control, Lauda Finem volunteers have been inundated with emails denouncing the SUNDAY program, the so called “third juror” and (what the overwhelming majority of our correspondents felt was) the programs hidden agenda. We should also note the fact that we also received a number of very nasty emails intent on re-trying David  Bain.

That aside, the emails, taken as a whole, shed a great deal of light on particular patterns of behaviour and what to us appeared to be a single source from which the negative commentators had drawn their inspiration. There were also a number of comments, most of which for very good reasons we didn’t publish, that linked the TVNZ program and the third juror to that same strangely malevolent source, an individual by the name of Kent Parker and his website;

One of our regular informants, and a number of others, provided additional information that we are still working our way through.

Amongst the material we received were references to evidence available online that also points to the likelihood of a  link between the aforementioned anti Bain protagonist Kent Parker and TVNZ’s “the third juror“.

Mr Parker it seems holds very strong views on David Bain and he appears to have garnered quite a following, a fan club that is clearly intent on re-litigating the case through the court of public opinion. Whilst our research indicates that this group is not particularly sizable by any means it has certainly managed to appear larger than life ably assisted by complicit media organisations, TVNZ amongst them.

It’s certainly evident in the SUNDAY program, clearly the journalist and the programs two producers wanted their viewers to believe that they and “the third juror” had, for the first time exposed serious wrong doing in the Bain trial but, unfortunately, nothing could have been further from the truth.

The programs viewers were introduced to the third juror in a way that would have the more gullible viewers believing that she had, for the first time, stepped forward to expose the alleged wrong doing by her fellow jurors in the Bain trial. There was a deliberate attempt by the presenter, the producers and “the third juror” to mislead the audience by presenting the allegations as brand spanking new allegations and a stop press SUNDAY exclusive.

The producers and the journo doing the interview went to extraordinary lengths to paint their “third juror” as an honest and concerned citizen who had contacted TVNZ with deep concerns involving alleged wrong doing in the jury room during Bain’s 2009 retrial.

The way in which the program was scripted, naive viewers the third jurors revelations would have seemed quite extraordinary, which of course was exactly what those behind this bullshit propaganda piece wanted.

For those of us who are a little more experience however the programs agenda became transparent as the story slowly unfolded, despite the cleverly crafted smoke and mirrors that invited the viewer to believe that the story was all about the third jurors concerns in and around the juries deliberations.

Composite mugshot two: TVNZ’s “the third juror”

In 2011, three members of the Lauda Finem team attended an event at the Sydney Town Hall. One of the speakers at this event, controversial journalist John Pilger, spoke on the subject of the media and the manipulation of public opinion. In doing so he referred to the American nephew of psychologist Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays. Bernays was a pioneer in the use of public relations and propaganda, he was in fact the father of spin. Bernays described spin as “the intelligent manipulation of the public with “false realities” which a compliant media would dispense”.

In this case the concerns expressed by John Pilger have taken real life form, an almost text book example of Edward Bernays notion of spin with “the intelligent manipulation” of the SUNDAY programs viewers with “false realities” by a compliant television New Zealand, with the objective of influencing public opinion.  Every fair minded New Zealander should now be deeply concerned with this outrageous behaviour.

Another of the speakers at the aforementioned event, renowned human rights barrister Julian Burnside QC, addressed the audience of 2500. Amongst the many subjects Mr Burnside spoke to was the criminal justice system and the importance of  an indespensible cornerstone “the presumption of innocence”. This is yet another of the issues that should now concern New Zealander’s given that the SUNDAY program in question appears to have ridden roughshod over this very important notion. It’s a very disturbing behaviour that is fast becoming the norm amongst New Zealand’s journalists

As we have pointed out many times before spin doctors, when trying to manipulate the public, often rely on presenting information in  isolation and the interview with the so called third juror is a text book example of that formula.

Readers will recall that Lauda Finem, after viewing the program, suspected that something was not quite right, in fact everything about the program screamed wrong!

We raised a number of concerns about the behaviour of the third juror and we left readers with a series of question, some of which we now have answers to:

Was “the third juror” attempting to subvert David Bain’s bid for compensation?

It is our view that this is exactly what “the third Juror” was attempting to do; ably assisted by TVNZ,   journalist Janet McIntrye and Sundays producers Chris Cooke and Max Adams. She had form in that she had contacted the Christchurch Press in February this year with the same intention:

“A juror from the second trial of David Bain wrote to the justice minister urging him not to pay compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment”

Source: Don’t pay Bain compo – juror (Fairfax)

Why didn’t Crown law immediately investigate her behaviour, in contacting Justice Binnie, when Binnie had reported it to Crown Law?

Lauda Finem believes that the reasons behind Justice Binnie’s referring “the third jurors” correspondence to crown law is that he had serious concerns, similar to those which we have  expressed. That he was likely wanting to know how she had obtained his personal contact details and details of what he was considering, which included the knowledge that the judge asked for and been given Joe Karam’s book. This of course resulted in Judge Binnie going public, after the fact, again in February this year:

Judge asks for Karam books to decide compo claim  (Fairfax)

That she had, we believe, in her email and attached affidavit disclosed confidential detail of the deliberations of the jury and as such had committed a criminal offence. We believe it more than likely that she had disclosed  juries deliberations in her correspondence with Justice Binnie for the simple reason that she had again committed the offence when she wrote to then Justice Minister Simon Power in April 2010 and yet again when she (undoubtedly prompted by judge Binnie public admission of his request for Joe Karam’s book two weeks earlier ) contacted journalist Martin Van Beynen at the Christchurch Press in the weeks prior to the 24th February 2012:

The juror wrote to then justice minister Simon Power in April 2010 raising, among other things, misgivings about the conduct of the jury during the trial.

Much of the letter cannot be reported because the law prevents the publication of material revealing the deliberations of a jury. The Bain juror also expressed concerns about the jury not having access to evidence that was suppressed until the verdict was reached and then released after the trial.

In the letter, the juror reveals three other jurors, of their own volition, visited Every St, where the murders took place, during the trial”

Source: Don’t pay Bain compo – juror (Fairfax)

Is she suffering from mental illness or is she just a complete fuckwit?

We’ll leave our readers to form their own conclusions when attempting to answer the above question.

Halfwit TVNZ hack Janet McIntyre; what the hell were they thinking?

Having established the fact that this juror, a woman that TVNZ last Sunday tried to paint in a benign saint complete with a luminous halo and as having just come forward in the interest of justice and the preservation of the sanctity of the jury, is one in the same person that has spent the past two and a half years covertly maliciously endeavouring to undermine David Bain’s bid for compensation for the 13 years he spent behind bars, a bid that has likely been supported in the report, commissioned by the government, by retired Canadian Judge Ian Binnie.

This Juror’s reprehensible behaviour has gone undetected and unpunished simply because she could not be identified. Comfortable in the knowledge that the public would be none the wiser she kept popping up again and again knowing that she could only ever be identified as “A juror” who in the mind of the public could have been any one of the twelve people that sat in judgement of David Bain.

The third jurors connection to the malevolent Mr Ken Parker is to be found in one of the dirty little stories, containing the exact same allegations aired on TVNZ which was posted on his website on or about the 18th January 2012 just a matter of weeks prior to Judge Binnie (5th February 1012) publicly disclosing the fact that he had requested a copy of Joe Karam’s book and then journalist Martin Van Beynen’s article in the Christchurch Press (24th February 2012) all in the short space of a little over one month; coincidence perhaps?  We very much doubt it. It seems, to us at least, that this pair of nasty little malicious fuck tard’s had been acting in tandem in numerous attempts at creating clusterfucks for Bain and Karam’s campaign for compensation:

EXCLUSIVE – Juror Misconduct in 2009 Bain Retrial

A member of the jury from the 2009 retrial of David Bain reports the following took place during the course of the trial:

  1. Early in the trial (well before the prosecution closed), one jury member suggested that, “Once this is all over, I’ll invite Joe Karam over to my house so we can all meet him.”
  2. Another jury member bought one of Karam’s books at some stage during the trial. He made it clear that his wife, who attended the trial from time to time, was trying to get it autographed by Karam.
  3. This same juror presented some printouts about Karam’s campaign that he/she had downloaded from the internet. The juror was quick to add that he/she hadn’t read them, yet he/she still brought them in to show other members of the jury.

The above is additional to previous reports of jury members being invited to attend the after trial party by the Defence team and then two of them turning up before realising that it was highly inappropriate to do so and reports of one jury member hugging the defendant.

It has been brough to our attention that in NZ law we are not meant to publish anything this close to the inner deliberations of a jury in a criminal trial, but in this case we claim that publication is in the public interest and we will defend our right to do so.

Also the following has been revealed on

Three jurors also visited Every Street of their own volition, this despite the requirement that jurors not make their own investigations, but base their decision on what is presented to them in court.

There is a very strong argument that reprinting of the book David and Goliath was a violation of sub judice

As for the allegations of inappropriate conduct that this woman has repeatedly been throwing at her fellow jurors over the past two and a half years, it’s the worst case of “the pot calling the kettle black” that we’ve seen in a long long time.

Lets just hope that this little fucked up piece of TVNZ propaganda was not another cynical attempt by the National Party in governments spin machine to turn public opinion against Bain so that they can avoid having to cough the compensation he deserves!

The Team @ Lauda Finem send a huge thank-you to the  many readers (you know who you are) who took the time to do a spot of online research, keep up the good work folks and remember every little bit helps when putting together the big picture in the ongoing task of exposing the corrupt and malevolent behaviour.

Now that readers have a rough idea of what this so called “third juror” looks like  Lauda Finem would love to put a name to the face:

Categorised in: , ,

No Comments

  • Probably not, anyway it’s your choice. Those that have ‘pulled the levers’ are another matter.
    I’m very interested in those who have taken advantage of this Juror. It’s no accident that a hate-site administrator has published his knowledge on this matter, nor that Parker in his own words has been able to distinguish between the Jurors and what they might have done or said. It’s also very interesting how much of this information can be traced to individual sources. Plainly a couple of other posters here know a lot about the activities of Mr Parker and his associates not much of which does the man any credit. His goose remains cooking.

  • A couple of points.
    I’m against any Jurors being identified despite how much good reason there might appear to do so.
    I’m of course unaware of the deleted comments but I can say your correspondent from the South Island above has withdrawn from the group to which he previously belonged. I think he may have even changed his view about some of the ‘correctness’ of the material published by those groups.
    As to Mr Parker, firstly, it has been published that a reporter from the Christchurch Press was ordered to stay away from a Bain Juror after it was reported that the Juror complained of being harassed by him. Parker in his own writing has distinguished between various members of the Bain Jury apparently belying the familiarity of some of his group with identifying some Jurors which was the product of his group’s activities. The odd Juror Out, wrote to the Press, and also apparently Bill Hodge (an apparent supporter of the theories of that Group), the Group themselves discussed the Juror on line with some familiarity. Recently an administrator of the group wrote in some detail on a public message board bragging about correspondence sent by the Juror to other parties – unfortunately this trail all links together.

    • Hi nostalgia-nz,

      We’re pretty sure you’d have a very different opinion on outing jurors if you yourself had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice; with the prosecution having suborned the jury.

      The Team @ Lauda Finem

  • I am flattered that you would take the time to research me but cybernana and that posters Friend from Trade Me will supply you with all the information you need about me whether it is factual or nor is for you to decide. I do not know Kent Parker except as a name on a blog and with out factual evidence no one influences my thinking and I don’t buy into the extreme personal abuse poured out by BOTH sides to the debate.

    My interest in Scott Watson is experience and research based, the experience being military service in the Navy and the research around memory and witness reliability in identification. both are easy to explain wood ‘feels’ different to steel, memory can be manipulated especially when the is more than 14-21 days between the sighting and the interview In the investigation one identification interview took place and the witness ruled Scott out of the investigation by emphasising he was not the unidentified man. Three and a half months would elapse before further identification interview took place and the standard of the procedure even moved the Internal Police Compliments authors to admit the standard of the identification procedure did not follow 1998 [non existent] best practice and ‘had the ability to reduce the validity of the process” Scott is demonstratively innocent yet he has been refused any legal aid of any sort to further his case and it irritates me to see the legal aid money spent prior to the Privy Council hearing cost others the ability to obtain aid to clear themselves. Research in the US by several universities co-operatively invery likely vestigating every DNA exoneration then removing all that did not fit a very narrow criteria such as the use of paid informants and forensic disciplines being the major factor in conviction reveal the lowest possible rate of actual innocence of whole of life and death row inmates to be at least 3.5% and is more likely to be one in twenty inmates is actually innocent There is approximately 7800 inmate on death row in the US so using the 3.5% figure 110 plus are completely innocent. There is no reason to believe New Zealand Prison hold any less a percentage of innocents within the wire fences.
    I applaud your seeking to improve the legal system it needs it quickly and thoroughly but being side tracked by taking barbs to those who see things on a wider scale than one person and his compensation destroys your credibility
    As always I sign my name and refuse to hide behind a nickname

    • Hi Lindsay,

      Here’s an idea! Why don’t you all start supporting each other in the respective campaigns for justice, it makes no sense to be sniping at each other and criticizing the basis for each groups belief that the respective individuals you all believe have been wrongfully convicted were convicted. The truth is that if one man has been wrongly convicted using spurious manufactured evidence or corrupt policing methods then there is a likelihood that it has been systemic and many have fallen victim to the same prosecutorial abuse; Just ask Ross Meurant:

      The Govt relies heavily on the “divide and rule” factor, and it will continue to be available to it until New Zealand’s citizens finally wake up to it!

    • “Hi Lindsay,

      Here’s an idea! Why don’t you all start supporting each other in the respective campaigns for justice”

      A very good idea laudafinem team but climbing into bed with these people would be like sleeping with a rattle snake…………………………………….

      “I do not know Kent Parker except as a name on a blog” ……………

      Mr Kennard claims to have no contact with Kent Parker but only makes that claim after hiding his list of friends on his Facebook account. People this deceitful have an agenda that does not include justice for all their agenda is to serve themselves nothing more nothing less.

  • cybernana says:

    You do realise, don’t you, that a producer of that program, namely Chris Cooke, was in 1997 a freelance journalist ? The Woman’s day published (front page promotion) an article written by him about David Bain, a rather nasty, and untrue article. They were sued for defamation, eventually printed a retraction and settled out of court for the sum of $50,000. The full story can be found in the book Bain and Beyond.

    • Hi Cybernana,

      No we hadn’t but we’re sure that many of our Kiwi readers won’t have known either; its’ info like this that helps citizens join the dots. Thanks and keep up the good work.

      The Team @ Lauda Finem

  • Hi Lindsay,

    We did a little research on you and your extreme views on the Bain case seems that something or someone has caused you to have a change of heart:, Kent Parker perhaps

  • I need some help I have lost Dean Winters Linkedin profile details he has either deleted his profile or blocked me from viewing it. Do you have a copy of his Linkedin profile? I have for quiet some time held the view that there is a link between Winter, his connections with police and Trademe allowing message board users the likes of Kent Parker and L R Lennard and others to defame both both David Bain and Joe Karam.

    I know that Winter was at Trademe during the period of slandering and left sometime after the Bain Not Guilty trial.

    Its interesting how when there are accusations of corruption these names seem to appear involved.


    • Hi Rossco,

      Yes we have just notice that he has pulled down his linked in site, we have replaced the link with a screen grab in the post:

      or alternately you can grab a copy via the direct link


      The Team @ Lauda Finem

      • Many thanks for that.
        This is his present position that doesn’t show on your screen shot.
        October 2012 – Present (1 month) Crown Law
        A new role in Crown Law, reporting to the Deputy Solicitor-General (Criminal). The role is to establish a unit which will provide effective supervision of the Crown Solicitor network, manage the relevant appropriation and maintain relationships with the aim of delivering efficiencies and enhanced service delivery. The unit will also provide oversite of prosecution services by other Government Agencies, supporting a high-quality and cost effective public prosecution service.


      • Thanks Rossco, yes that grab was taken quite some time ago.

    • lindsayrk says:

      I have no connection with Dean Winters, the Police or any of the inner circle of the JFRB as I became concerned at the direction it was taking and have not had contact for a number of months. I am concerned though to see the Correspondent using your site to launch personal attack on others an eample

      • Gee Whizz mate that citations a bit old!

      • lindsayrk says:

        I don’t figure by name in rosscos writings now as there in in place an agreement he will not name me online and in return I would through my lawyer submit an application to the Legal Aid Services not to seek costs against rossco for my respondent legal costs in reply to his application for a online restraining order using the Harassment Act, a novel interpretation .of the Act. which is intendind in it present form to apply to physical harassment by way of loitering near the persons home or work or physical mail or email. It does not relate to writings on lines where the harassed person has to search the internet to find the alleged harassment. Harassment was never a flyer for the judge as I live on a different Island and about 1200 km away.

        rossco alleges I am one of his so called hate-siters mentioned in his diatribe “counterspin”

        This is a man convicted on two separate occas ions of being a killer so there is no way I am going to the time and trouble.of harassing him. He does not, in spite of his admission in mediation others are entitled to opposing opinions to his, they have proven to be snake words as his abuse of other opinions as a read through his writings will attest. I actually feel sorry for someone so closed minded that he cannot rebut counter opinion and instead resorts to alleging people are paedophiles or paedophiles lovers if they don’t agree with his unfounded claim Robin Bain was a paedophile based on the words of a Dunedin pimp and car salesman who made a habit of getting lost when required to give evidence.

        I came to this site on reading a blog on Scott Watson a cause I have been closely involved in for over eight years and have very strong belief in his factual innocence. I am not interested in getting mind numbing diatribes about the innocence of David Bain, simply because a Not Guilty does not mean factual innocence any more than an innocent man convicted of a crime becomes factually guilty because the jury’s finding. Many guilty people walk out of court because the police and/or crown have failed to establish guilt to the required standard.

      • We here at Lauda Finem have done further research, sorry mate but you’ve been sprung:

      • Kennard I am not NOSTALGIA-NZ and this is not the first time I have pointed this out to you.

        I am not abusing you rather I am am simply pointing out you are dishonest.

        You recognize the screen shot below don’t you.

        If you want to be taken seriously you are going to have to stop lying.

        Interesting that you should deny knowing Dean Winter, am I right in suggesting he is also tied up with your corrupt little cult. He was at Trademe at the height of the slandering as you would know. I have also shown on here that he has close ties with police who incidentally or not surprisingly have similar views to you people re David Bain. The fact that you take the time to deny knowing Winter is indeed suspicious.

        What utterly irritates me about you is your utterly smug condescending attitude.

        You claim to be some what of an expert stating……………..

        “My interest in Scott Watson is experience and research based, the experience being military service in the Navy and the research around memory and witness reliability in identification”.

        It is quite clear you are capable of researching but what irritates me is………..with all your self professed capabilities you couldn’t see the forest from the trees when it came to David Bain’s obvious innocence or more precisely the complete and utter shambled investigation.

        Its over Kennard David Bain entered entered a NOT GUILTY plea and remains innocent.

        Back to the subject is the woman featured in this item connected to your obscene cult if so name and expose her. Do the decent thing for a change. I know you can do it.

      • Hi Lindsayrk,

        Laudafinem can attest to the fact that “Rossco” is not “nostalgia-nz”, different IP addresses. So whats the agenda in making spurious allegations against a commentator who is entitled to challenge your beliefs Lindsay. You’ve already mislead readers by stating that you have nothing whatsoever to do with Kent Parker et al and yet emails you’ve sent to various others have been copied to Parker and his supporters: As it is often said, Lindsay, falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

  • lindsayrk says:

    to Laudafinem I suggest you read something other the the four publications of Mr Karam.

    • Good Morning Lindsay,

      We have disallowed your first comment as it, yet again, contained commentary that bore no relationship to the subject matter of our article (you have been warned previously).

      We would also like to point out that no one here at Lauda Finem has in fact read Mt Karam’s book nor do any of us intend to. Our posts relate specifically to the outrageous behaviour of one particular juror and the now obvious agenda that she has pursued since the jury delivered its “NOT GUILTY” verdicts.

      With respect to the ever so slightly strange claim that you have “personal name suppression” prohibiting anyone from naming you, born of proceedings unrelated to the Bain matter, and issued by a New Zealand Court; 1. We have not named you, you named yourself. 2. Not withstanding point (1.) you should be aware that Lauda Finem is not a New Zealand domiciled website, it is 100% Australian and as such New Zealand courts have absolutely no jurisdiction over what this website does or doesn’t do!

      • lindsayrk says:

        Hi Lindsay,

        Are you a complete fucktard or what? You have now been black listed, we have already advised you that we WILL NOT RE-LITIGATE THE BAIN TRIAL, you obviously ignored our response and the advice that justice campaigners should stick together(see below)

        How do you relate to the ……Redacted

  • ” there spintripe site” should have read ‘their spintripe site’

  • This is how credible Kent Parker and his cult followers are. The links below are from there spintripe site and you will notice that your Mr Lindsay R. Kennard Canterbury has signed the tripe petition (at least) twice. There are other obvious and visible examples on that list. You have to ask how many of the anonymous signatures are there duplicated.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: