David Bain's "I shot the Prick" 111 call?

[madbikeboy]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10577817

[oldrider]

Clear or not does he get any more of our money without it being taken into consideration? :nono:

Some of the posters on KB put the theory forward of this scenario and frankly, to me, it is the only one that makes sense! :rolleyes:

Here we go again! :argue:

[Winston001]

Wondered when that would surface. The words obviously aren't very clear so the Supreme Court decided it wasn't safe for the jury to hear them.

[ManDownUnder]

I heard it was "I'm shitting bricks"...

[skidMark]

Clear or not does he get any more of our money without it being taken into consideration? :nono:

Some of the posters on KB put the theory forward of this scenario and frankly, to me, it is the only one that makes sense! :rolleyes:

Here we go again! :argue:


He is not guilty... he never was guilty...

he deserves compensation and alot of it...

put yourself in his situation...

your father murders your entire family, only you survive... you know you did not do it... the police plant evidence and frame you... no time to grieve... nothing... then they throw you in a cell for 15 years.

we cannot even start to comprehend what that poor guy has gone through.

[scumdog]

Or "My snot is thick"? "My top is shit"? - could be anything

[Indoo]

Like how they planted his fingerprints on the gun, rubbed his groin into Stephens blood, punched him in the face a few times, grazed his knee, made him wash the murder clothes, made him get his bloody handprints on the washing machine, made the washing machine switch itself off halfway through its cycle, made him wait 25 minutes before calling Police, planted the memory of hearing his sister struggling to breath and all the other evidence pointing towards his guilt.

I guess the Police must have really had it in for young university students in those days eh.

[short-circuit]

"My top is shit"?

Leave the jumper out of this

[ManDownUnder]

I heard it was "I'm shitting bricks"...

Or "I'm feeling sick"
Or...

[Mully]

...but he didn't shoot the Deputy.

[Skyryder]

He is not guilty... he never was guilty...

So how do you kill 4 members of your family, one of whom puts up one hell of a fight where blood is spread all over the room and you do not get so much as speckle on yourself. Now if you can explain that then I will give David Bain the benefit of the doubt.

As for taxpayers money going to this guy...........I'd tell him to get his inhertance off his family................not mine yours or anybody elses by way of our taxes.


Skyryder

[skidMark]

So how do you kill 4 members of your family, one of whom puts up one hell of a fight where blood is spread all over the room and you do not get so much as speckle on yourself. Now if you can explain that then I will give David Bain the benefit of the doubt.

As for taxpayers money going to this guy...........I'd tell him to get his inhertance off his family................not mine yours or anybody elses by way of our taxes.


Skyryder


what are you on about the father was covered in blood as well.

for somebody whose signature asks to free scott watson... who actually DID kill 2 people... i think your opinion is pretty void.

[Skyryder]

Or "My snot is thick"? "My top is shit"? - could be anything

And problay is.......................


I had my doubts on Bain when I first heard the phone call. It was broadcast on the news............I think on the same day as the murders..........and before Bain became a suspect.


Still makes a change from the waving threads:niceone:


Skyryder

[skidMark]

And problay is.......................


I had my doubts on Bain when I first heard the phone call. It was broadcast on the news............I think on the same day as the murders..........and before Bain became a suspect.


Still makes a change from the waving threads:niceone:


Skyryder


Yeah some people just need a backhand slap instead of a wave...

nAa36d-HPyQ

[MisterD]

what are you on about the father was covered in blood as well.

It was David that had the mystery scratches and bruises - how does that work Columbo?

[Mikkel]

Perhaps he had been listening to another Judas Priest album beforehand... you never know.

[Skyryder]

what are you on about the father was covered in blood as well.

for somebody whose signature asks to free scott watson... who actually DID kill 2 people... i think your opinion is pretty void.


There was no blood of Steven's on the father.............not a drop, only a few spots of his own blood....................still have not come up with an answer as to why there was not any on Robin Bain...........if like many do that he killed Steven.


Funny how you think Robin Bain did the killings when there is no evidence for this and Watson DID kill two people where again there is still no evidence that he did..........let alone any bodies.

And my opinion is "void?"


Skyryder

[Maha]

Cl

Some of the posters on KB put the theory forward of this scenario and frankly, to me, it is the only one that makes sense! :rolleyes:

Here we go again! :argue:

Its what I believed happen John, no arguement there.
He is not guilty of killing his whole family, just the one.

[Skyryder]

Its what I believed happen John, no arguement there.
He is not guilty of killing his whole family, just the one.


There is absolutely no evidence for this at all. None. It's pure speculation put out by those who can not explain why David would kill his entire family. It's the old man. He's the outcast therefore he must have done it. Bollocks.

And as aside too this I recently read that the Bain estate was worth somewhere to the tune of $600,000. Go figure.


Skyryder

[ManDownUnder]

I'm just glad we have another Bain thread... God - it was a whole day without one!

[ManDownUnder]

There is absolutely no evidence for this at all. None.

Agreed - the cops chucked it out...

[oldrider]

He is not guilty... only you survive... you know you did not do it...

Sorry Mark, only David Bain knows the true answer to that question, everything else is emotional conjecture!

Me, I have absolutely no idea but I don't think he should get any compensation without Innocense being less subjective! I.E. Beyond all reasonable doubt!

It's a bit like common sense, whose version is correct?

In Bain's case the jury is the "official" version but..........?

The jury said not guilty on the evidence presented but does the rest of the country agree, beyond all reasonable doubt?

He who pays the piper should call the tune, taxpayers here are paying, so far (as a taxpayer) I don't like the tune?

That's just my personal opinion, unlikely to be taken into account! :oi-grr:

[Indoo]

what are you on about the father was covered in blood as well.

for somebody whose signature asks to free scott watson... who actually DID kill 2 people... i think your opinion is pretty void.

I'd say the question is what the hell are you on about. Robin Bain only had a few specks of his own blood on him from after he was shot. He wasn't covered in blood, nor did he have any injuries consistent with being in a struggle, David on the other hand had the blood of the victims on him and had injuries consistent with being in a struggle.

Its interesting that you claim to know for a fact that Robin Bain killed four people, care to lay out the case against Robin?

[Maha]

There is absolutely no evidence for this at all. None. It's pure speculation put out by those who can not explain why David would kill his entire family. It's the old man. He's the outcast therefore he must have done it. Bollocks.


Skyryder

True enough,
I wasn't there at the time so I am basing my 'speculation' on what I have heard over the years (like everyone else is, barr those that really, Bain himself primarily)

Karam on TV the other night....
''Judge to Jury ''you are only ones (public) that have heard every bit of evidence''

Karam went on to say ''whats with all the polls, the public only hear snipts of evidence by whats reported through the media''

[short-circuit]

True enough,
I wasn't there at the time so I am basing my 'speculation' on what I have heard over the years (like everyone else is, barr those that really, Bain himself primarily)

Karam on TV the other night....
''Judge to Jury ''you are only ones (public) that have heard every bit of evidence''

Karam went on to say ''whats with all the polls, the public only hear snipts of evidence by whats reported through the media''

Yeah in between smugly congratulating himself and discussing the toll the whole thing had taken on his life - the egotistical, narcissistic, attention-seeking little weasel

[k14]

Yeah in between smugly congratulating himself and discussing the toll the whole thing had taken on his life - the egotistical, narcissistic, attention-seeking little weasel
Yeah totally agree. When he was shown on the news when the verdict was read he was just lapping up the exposure like a little smug, smarmy prick. I can't work out his actual motive from it all, I don't for one minute believe it was "for the good of an innocent man"...

[ynot slow]

Be interesting if the estate gets finalised and then David is asked to pay some legal fees back,or contribute to Karams bank account.

Still it will be interesting when coroner revues his findings,they can't really change,if they do then it means he was acting on the prosecuting evidence maybe.He comes up with struggles prior to death,and gunshots killed the victims,woohoo bet that was hard to work out.Loss of blood,trauma to main arteries,brain exploding.Be interesting to see findings from Robins autopsy and whether he could have done it.

Sort of still think the old man shot the wife and girls,maybe a struggle with younger son and David over the old man,David acidentally shoots his bro,bro unconcious,kills the old fart,then realises his bro alive goes into finish him off.Far fetched you bet,but not as much as we are led to believe from the puppet master.Has David got a voice,must be mega deals with magazines etc.

[James Deuce]

I saw Jesus on my toast this morning, but I didn't tell everyone about it. Oops.

[Indoo]

Yeah totally agree. When he was shown on the news when the verdict was read he was just lapping up the exposure like a little smug, smarmy prick. I can't work out his actual motive from it all, I don't for one minute believe it was "for the good of an innocent man"...

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3493/features/8657/one_angry_man.html

[ManDownUnder]

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3493/features/8657/one_angry_man.html

LOLOL - touche!

[YellowDog]

Delivering papers can be very tough.

Some of the dogs bite!

[Skyryder]

I don't mind anyone acting on their beliefs and Karam has done just that.

In a strange sort of way I believe the world would be a lesser place without the Karam's but having said that it is Joe Karam who has won..........not David Bain.

I still hold the view sooner a guilty man free than an innocent one banged up.


Skyryder

[short-circuit]

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3493/features/8657/one_angry_man.html

I read that at the time it was published - doesn't really explain his motives for becoming so deeply involved. I think he's done it to regain some sort of public profile (ex All Black, successful lawyer etc etc). The way he refers to himself in the third person as well as the fact that he continually talks about this as being his own battle rather than Bain's tell me that it's the personal crusade of a Narcissist

I wouldn't be surprised if, at first he thought Bain to be innocent and has since changed his mind. He strikes me as the kind of person who wouldn't care either way. Too busy feeling personally vindicated

[Indoo]

I'd agree with that from reading that interview amongst others he's done, its pretty funny how that journalist exposes him for what he is.

I just wonder when or if he will ever let the 'innocent' man actually speak for himself.

[hospitalfood]

Bain is innocent. the fact that there are muppets on here who believe otherwise is sad.
all you "bain is guilty" crew, are you really so stupid you cannot imagine another way he got bruises and scratches ? maybe fainted after finding his whole family dead ? I pity your parents!
have you considered the possibility the dad changed his clothes ?
do you really think your single opinion is more valid that 12 opinions of others who know the facts ?

if you think he is guilty, you are very fucking stupid! and i suggest you kill yourself as a service to the rest of the world. and don't leave a mess !!! or do it before your son comes home from his paper round !!!

[steve_t]

Why is this still in the news? If they decide he did say "I shot the prick" will there be a retrial?
It should be over and done with... until he's shown on Dancing With The Stars :laugh:

[scumdog]

Bain is innocent. the fact that there are muppets on here who believe otherwise is sad.
all you "bain is guilty" crew, are you really so stupid you cannot imagine another way he got bruises and scratches ? maybe fainted after finding his whole family dead ? I pity your parents!
have you considered the possibility the dad changed his clothes ?
do you really think your single opinion is more valid that 12 opinions of others who know the facts ?

if you think he is guilty, you are very fucking stupid! and i suggest you kill yourself as a service to the rest of the world. and don't leave a mess !!! or do it before your son comes home from his paper round !!!


So....who DID kill them all then Sherlock??

And your evidence to support your idea on who the real killer is????

[short-circuit]

Bain is innocent. the fact that there are muppets on here who believe otherwise is sad.
all you "bain is guilty" crew, are you really so stupid you cannot imagine another way he got bruises and scratches ? maybe fainted after finding his whole family dead ? I pity your parents!
have you considered the possibility the dad changed his clothes ?
do you really think your single opinion is more valid that 12 opinions of others who know the facts ?

if you think he is guilty, you are very fucking stupid! and i suggest you kill yourself as a service to the rest of the world. and don't leave a mess !!! or do it before your son comes home from his paper round !!!

A few more points for you to consider:


David Bain not guilty............

Right o so therefore the defence case that Robin Bain was the killer must be true then eh??

To be the killer you'd have to accept the following.......


It was a lucky guess when David Bain told 111 ambulance officer they are all dead, despite later saying he only saw two bodies

Again a lucky guess hen DB told police officer they are all dead

The 25 minute gap between DB finding his family dead and calling 111 is in no way connected with trying to wash clothes and removed blood.

The bruise on David’s head and scratches on his chest and graze on his knee – none of which he could explain, were just a coincidence

The lens from his glasses found in Stephen’s room happened weeks ago and he never noticed OR someone else had borrowed the glasses

The lack of fresh injuries on Robin despite the massive struggle with Stephen is just the product of healthy living

David’s finger prints on gun are from a previous time

David telling a friend he had premonition something bad was going to happen was a genuine psychic experience

Stephen’s blood on David’s clothing was nothing to do with the struggle – OR someone else borrowed his clothes

Robin managed to execute his family on a full bladder

The lock and key to the rifle being found in David’s room is not relevant as they were obviously placed there

Robin decided to wash David’s green jersey to remove blood and the fibres from jersey found under Steven’s finger nails

David’s bloody palm print on the washing machine was from him checking the bodies

The Ambulance officer was wrong when he said in his opinion Bain was pretending to have a fit

Robin Bain would logically wear gloves to prevent fingerprints despite it being a murder-suicide

That Robin Bain would type a message on a computer for David telling him he is the only one who deserves to live, instead of writing a note. A hand written note incidentally would have cleared David.

Also that having just shot his family, and knowing David was due home, that Robin would wait 44 seconds for the computer to boot up to leave a message

Robin would decide David deserved to live, but go out of his way to frame him for murder

Robin Bain placed fibres from Davids jersey under Stephen’s finger nails

Robin Bain would shoot himself with a gun in the most awkward way possible?

That Robin Bain changed jerseys after he had killed his family and in particular Stephen Bain, washed the jersey, hung it on the line and then change into a brown jersey before killing himself?

That there is a logical reason that David Bain can not account for the injuries on his face, the bruise or the scraped knee, yet knows he did not have them during his paper run.

That Robin Bain put blood on the inside of David’s duvet and on his light switch

That there is an innocent explanation for why David says he put on washing before he discovered the bodies, yet there is a blood print on the washing machine.

That Laniet was being paranoid when she told friends she was scared of David

That the “family meeting” David called the previous night and insisted everyone attended was not a way to make sure everyone would be at home to kill.

That Robin Bain would wear a hat while shooting himself in the head.

That even though David told a relative he hated his father, his father did not know this and deliberately decided David was the only one who deserved to live

That David either imagined hearing Laniet gurgling or she gurgled 20 minutes after death

That Laniet allegations of incent with Robin was true, as was her claims she had given birth three times by the age of 12 and a half.

That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene.

That it is a coincidence that on the morning of the murders Bain took his dog onto a property, ensuring he would be noticed to give him an alibi.

That the magazine found balanced on an edge next to Robin was not placed there by David but fell onto its edge from Robin’s arms.

That a sickly Robin Bain managed to overpower his teendage son who put up a furious fight

That Robin Bain went and got the newspaper from outside, despite planning to shoot himself

David bain has been found not guilty as a result of a concerted effort to create doubt in the mind of the public and jurors. Oh yeah the jurors, none of whom will not have heard of the case prior to the trial.

I wonder what will happen when compensation is sought and the reasonable doubt/jury is replaced by balance of evidence as viewed by a barrister.

Oh yeah and of course you'd change into some nice fresh gears after slaughtering your family but just before blowing your brains out at the most awkward angle possible eh?

[steve_t]

Didn't the jurors go drinking with Bain and co after the hearing finished?

[NighthawkNZ]

Wondered when that would surface. The words obviously aren't very clear so the Supreme Court decided it wasn't safe for the jury to hear them.

Man I like to get my hands on that tape and Analyze it myself... personally the couple of times I heard it... pfffht nothing... if anything he is trying to remember his phone number (in shock...) hell I can never remember it under normally circumstances...

some one is just wanting to keep the rumors going... I jury found him not guity... get over it...

[crazyhorse]

Who really gives - a decision has been reached - not everyone is gonna be happy with it - but let the guy have a life now.

[marty]

Bain is innocent. the fact that there are muppets on here who believe otherwise is sad.
all you "bain is guilty" crew, are you really so stupid you cannot imagine another way he got bruises and scratches ? maybe fainted after finding his whole family dead ? I pity your parents!
have you considered the possibility the dad changed his clothes ?
do you really think your single opinion is more valid that 12 opinions of others who know the facts ?

if you think he is guilty, you are very fucking stupid! and i suggest you kill yourself as a service to the rest of the world. and don't leave a mess !!! or do it before your son comes home from his paper round !!!

so far, it's 12 believed he was guilty, 12 thought he wasn't.

pretty much how the country is split i reckon.

you sound like you're actually more of a karam supporter than a bain supporter

and suggesting someone kills themselves because of their opinion is classic attack argument behaviour of someone who forms an opinion just 'because'....not actually based on any in-depth knowledge.

[Del Fuego]

Sounded like "I can't breath" to me but to be fair I really couldn't care much less than I do.

too many people around anyway.

[YellowDog]

The 111 call has no merit or value.

If it did have, the prosecution would have used it to influence the jury.

[gatch]

Without actually being in the court room for the duration of the proceedings and hearing the evidence and spin that both sides are using, it is IMPOSSIBLE to draw a plausible conclusion that is not based on conjecture and emotion.

Also simply by discussing the matter after the fact we are just feeding demand for the up and coming "David Bain Exclusive Insight Interview" that will no doubt appear in some shit house magazine in supermarket aisles near you..

[Mom]

I wont comment further on the current case that has prompted this thread, he was found not-guilty on the evidence presented to the jury for consideration. I have my own opinion about what happened.

Infact why we are even hearing about suppressed evidence raises a heap of other questions, normally we only hear about the suppressed details when a person is found guilty.

I am sick and tired of hearing about some mutt being convicted of a terrible crime, only to have it revealed that the person has a real history of similar offending, and that fact has been suppressed for the trial for fear it might prejudge the case.

[Skyryder]

The 111 call has no merit or value.

If it did have, the prosecution would have used it to influence the jury.


The value of the call lies in its inaudibility and Bains undecipherable comments.

Bain comes home finds his family shot and calls for help in a manner that at first no one can understand him. Is this the action of a man truly 'intent' on getting help for his family as fast as possible?? Not in my view.

But on second thoughts could this recording be that of a man who has realised the enormity of what he has done??


Skyryder

[98tls]

so far, it's 12 believed he was guilty, 12 thought he wasn't.

pretty much how the country is split i reckon.
:niceone:Hospitalfoods just to stupid to work that out.

[imdying]

if you think he is guilty, you are very fucking stupid! and i suggest you kill yourself as a service to the rest of the world. and don't leave a mess !!! or do it before your son comes home from his paper round !!!Hahahahahah, that's right, wasn't him, it was the magical family killing fairys :clap:

[Skyryder]

I wont comment further on the current case that has prompted this thread, he was found not-guilty on the evidence presented to the jury for consideration. I have my own opinion about what happened.

Infact why we are even hearing about suppressed evidence raises a heap of other questions, normally we only hear about the suppressed details when a person is found guilty.

I am sick and tired of hearing about some mutt being convicted of a terrible crime, only to have it revealed that the person has a real history of similar offending, and that fact has been suppressed for the trial for fear it might prejudge the case.

That's because the jury needs to hear the evidence of the crime based on this alone. It happens to be one of the fundemental aspects of our justice system.

What you are advocating is a history of pre-offending to be used as evidence for another crime.



Skyryder

[madbikeboy]

Can anyone shed any light on who killed JFK and Marilyn Munroe? Can anyone explain why more socks go in, than come out? Why is there always a cop there when I do something really bad, but never when someone is trying to steal shit from me? Can anyone explain the inner workings of a woman's mind? Why does toast always land sticky side down. Why are Honda riders ghey? How is it that someone shot Martin Luther King, yet no one has used Carver as target practice? Does Hugh Hephner get bored of fucking hot chicks and yearn for a fat ugly one occasionally? Where the hell is Osama hiding? They can hit a target the size of a packet of cigerettes and yet they can't bomb Paris Hilton??

It seems clear cut to me, but after how many weeks of the trial, I guess the jurors must have found some reason to say not as guilty as he could be...

[oldrider]

Just watching Karam on TV1, for me, his credibility goes out the window faster than he can keep talking!

Was he formerly a Union organisor? Shit he is hard to shut up!

I agree the tape (as played on TV) was inconclusive!

This did he/didn't he will still be raging long after I am dead. :rolleyes:

[Skyryder]

Can anyone shed any light on who killed JFK and Marilyn Munroe? Can anyone explain why more socks go in, than come out? Why is there always a cop there when I do something really bad, but never when someone is trying to steal shit from me? Can anyone explain the inner workings of a woman's mind? Why does toast always land sticky side down. Why are Honda riders ghey? How is it that someone shot Martin Luther King, yet no one has used Carver as target practice? Does Hugh Hephner get bored of fucking hot chicks and yearn for a fat ugly one occasionally? Where the hell is Osama hiding? They can hit a target the size of a packet of cigerettes and yet they can't bomb Paris Hilton??

It seems clear cut to me, but after how many weeks of the trial, I guess the jurors must have found some reason to say not as guilty as he could be...


Best post by far on the subject:clap::clap:


Skyryder

[Mom]

That's because the jury needs to hear the evidence of the crime based on this alone. It happens to be one of the fundemental aspects of our justice system.

What you are advocating is a history of pre-offending to be used as evidence for another crime.
Skyryder

Does that actually make a difference? Serious question here. Yes, we are all innocent until proven guilty under law. I totally support that premise, heaven help me, one day I might be accused of a crime.

But why should the fact that I have previous form for the same thing be supressed from the jury? I am innocent of this crime until I am proven guilty surely? As you pointed out. If indeed I did not do the crime, and the prosecutors have not been able to prove I did beyond a reasonable doubt, then I have nothing to fear having anything that I have done revealed. Shit the court process goes to HUGE lengths to select a jury, the judge on any given case goesw to great pains to instruct the jury that all they are to judge the case on is the evidence they here in the trial, where is the issue?

I have personal experience of a statement I made being inadmissable 18 months later in an indecent assault case by an older man against a 16 year old boy.

If I am innocent I have nothing to fear surely? I get a fair trial anyway.

[NDORFN]

Does that actually make a difference? Serious question here. Yes, we are all innocent until proven guilty under law. I totally support that premise, heaven help me, one day I might be accused of a crime.

But why should the fact that I have previous form for the same thing be supressed from the jury? I am innocent of this crime until I am proven guilty surely? As you pointed out. If indeed I did not do the crime, and the prosecutors have not been able to prove I did beyond a reasonable doubt, then I have nothing to fear having anything that I have done revealed. Shit the court process goes to HUGE lengths to select a jury, the judge on any given case goesw to great pains to instruct the jury that all they are to judge the case on is the evidence they here in the trial, where is the issue?

I have personal experience of a statement I made being inadmissable 18 months later in an indecent assault case by an older man against a 16 year old boy.

If I am innocent I have nothing to fear surely? I get a fair trial anyway.

It depends whether you're trialed by Judge or Jury. Remember, Juries are everyday people like you and me, suseptible to bias based on a persons' history.

[MsKABC]

Why does toast always land sticky side down?

I can help you with this one....

This is the theory:

"When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet, and when toast is
dropped, it always lands buttered side down. Therefore, if a slice of toast is strapped to a cat's back, buttered side up, and the animal is then dropped, the two opposing forces will cause it to hover, spinning inches above the ground. If enough toast-laden felines were used, they could form the basis of a high-speed monorail system."

I've been thinking about this cat/toast business for a while. In the
buttered toast case, it's the butter that causes it to land buttered
side down - it doesn't have to be toast, the theory works equally well with Jacob's crackers. So to save money I think you just miss out the toast - and butter the cats. Also, should there be an imbalance between the effects of cat and butter, there are other substances that have a stronger affinity for carpet. Consider that the probability of carpet impact is determined by the
following simple formula:

P = S * t(t)/tc

(i.e. P = S * t/c) where P is the probability of carpet impact, and S is the "stain" value of the toast-covering substance - an indicator of the effectiveness of the topping in permanently staining the carpet.
Chicken Tikka Masala, for example, has a very high
S value, while the S value of water is zero. tc and t(t) indicate the tone of the carpet and topping respectively - the value of P being strongly related to the relationship between the colour of the carpet and topping, as even chicken tikka masala won't cause a permanent and obvious stain if the carpet is the same colour. So it is clear that the probability of carpet impact is maximised if you use chicken tikka masala and a white carpet - in fact this combination gives a P value of one, which is the same as the probability of a cat landing on its feet. Therefore a cat with chicken tikka masala plastered on its back will be certain to hover in mid air. Contrastingly, there could be problems with buttered toast as the toast may
fall off the cat, causing a terrible monorail crash resulting in nauseating images of members of the royal family visiting accident victims in hospital, and politicians saying it wouldn't have happened if their party was in power
there would have been more investment in cat-toast glue research.
Therefore it is in the interests not only of public safety but also public sanity if the buttered toast on cats idea is scrapped, to be replaced by a monorail powered by cats smeared with chicken tikka masala floating above a rail made from white wool shag pile carpet.

Reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A480935

[madbikeboy]

I can help you with this one....



I'm stoked. Truly. One of life's questions answered.

So, can you explain the inner workings of a woman's mind?

[Laava]

Sorry, I seem to be a little behind on this one. Had he killed his family before?
p/t:Pokey:

[jrandom]

Oh, gawd. Another Bain thread.

Let's face it, folks, 'justice' is bollocks. The only meaningful reason to keep anyone in in prison is to stop them doing more bad shit to the rest of society.

Whether or not David Bain killed his family, he ain't ever going to kill anyone else, so he might as well be out in society with a job instead of taking up valuable prison space that could more usefully be used to hold darkies.

[MsKABC]

I'm stoked. Truly. One of life's questions answered.

So, can you explain the inner workings of a woman's mind?

Happy to be of service.

You know very well that I can't! I've told you that before. Damned men - they never listen! :angry2:

[_Gina_]

It has been my prediction that David killed his father having arrived home to find that his father had slaughtered his whole family. The police thought so too, I would say. That's why they hear what they hear in the recording of his 111 call. I can hear it.

Maybe hearing it or not is relative to what your instinct believes...

[_Gina_]

Whether or not David Bain killed his family, he ain't ever going to kill anyone else.
No truer words spoken.

[_Gina_]

The 111 call has no merit or value.

If it did have, the prosecution would have used it to influence the jury.
I understand that the judge ruled that as it couldn't be clearly proven or disproven by experts then it was of no value to the jury. And that that is the only reason that the prosecution did not use it as evidence. If they could've they would've.

[madbikeboy]

Happy to be of service.

You know very well that I can't! I've told you that before. Damned men - they never listen! :angry2:

Can't, or won't. It's an important distinction. Is there some sort of agreed rules when you leave the maternity suite? Do you have to go on a course as a rite of passage?

Sorry, what were you saying?

[MsKABC]

Can't, or won't. It's an important distinction. Is there some sort of agreed rules when you leave the maternity suite? Do you have to go on a course as a rite of passage?

Sorry, what were you saying?

Right, that's it - I'm putting you on my ignore list :oi-grr:

[devnull]

It depends whether you're trialed by Judge or Jury. Remember, Juries are everyday people like you and me, suseptible to bias based on a persons' history.

Or by media?

[_Gina_]

Yeah totally agree. When he was shown on the news when the verdict was read he was just lapping up the exposure like a little smug, smarmy prick. I can't work out his actual motive from it all, I don't for one minute believe it was "for the good of an innocent man"...Logic suggests it would be the actions of a man who wouldn't like to lose (professional rugby players tend to be...) and the WIIFM angle is as simple as the exposure and advantage to his son's career post the Bain trial and working with QC's.

[jono035]

I saw Jesus on my toast this morning, but I didn't tell everyone about it. Oops.

http://www.prankplace.com/holytoast.htm

Saw one of those in a shop the other day... You too could have jesus on your toast EVERY DAY!

Edit - or the virgin Mary, depending on how closely you pay attention to what some blind idiot links in a forum.

[MisterD]

What you are advocating is a history of pre-offending to be used as evidence for another crime.



I think there are times when it might be justified. If we were to take a rape trial for instance, if the defence wanted to make the victim's sexual history an issue then absolutely the defendant's criminal history should be opened up to the jury as well - the case of a couple of ex-cops springs to mind...

[Hitcher]

Countries like the USA don't suppress anywhere near the amount of stuff that is here. In fact I don't know if a US judge can suppress anything. With some exceptions that practise doesn't seem to overly compromise the "quality" of that country's justice system.

[The Stranger]

What you are advocating is a history of pre-offending to be used as evidence for another crime.



Ok, I'm a touch confused here Skyryder.

If this is bad and shouldn't so be then why did my conviction for careless use 24 yrs ago come up in my dangerous charge about 12 months ago?
Does pre-disposition only exist in thraffic offences?

[Genestho]

Righto!

Let's chop this smarmy Tall Poppy Karam - down at the knees eh?
While we're at it...lets feed him to the wolves?:drool:

How DARE he sink 13 years of his life, loosing so much in supporting Bain, knowing there's a 50% chance of fail!

Who does this smug prick think he is, now that it's over?
By golly, who is this man that refuses to let media walk all over him, whilst standing up for what he believes in!?

And whats more, with his past history!
I bet he sat there over a whiskey one night and thought...AHAH, By Joves, I've got it!!!!!!

I'm going to raise my profile and become famous by supporting a potential killer! Heck that'll do it, AND my son will reap the benefits! SAWEEET!

*Chortle*

I have no doubt there will be some benefits for Karam, but I really doubt they outweigh the huge chunk of his life lost, and his losses along the way.

[doc]

:niceone: But you are only being tried on the evidence of the individual offence. Nice if your the offender. Try and relate it to when your trying to defend your speeding up Hwy 16, when they have evidence of you doing other stuff 10 years before up the same stretch of road. Snogging Maha for example.

I should have been a lawyer:clap:

[Deano]

I'm waiting for the movie. That'll explain everything. Oliver Driver can play DB.

[Skyryder]

Oh, gawd. Another Bain thread.


That's what I thought but it coulde be the Davis case.

Skyryder

[ynot slow]

So, can you explain the inner workings of a woman's mind?

Blardy simple,give em money and dey happy.Keep doing this every 3 or 4 days and ya sweet as,cheaper to pay for sex lol.(Especially divorce court).

[Mikkel]

This is the theory:

How hopelessly shallow. They don't even take the price of the carpet into consideration. :no:

And as for strapping buttered toast to the back of cats - it won't cause them to however, it's just a paradox and it will cause this existence to cease instantaneously. (In other words - don't try this at home unless you're really pissed off with your parents!)

[Skyryder]

But why should the fact that I have previous form for the same thing be supressed from the jury?


Because the jury may form an opinion on whether you committed the crime based on your historical offending and not on the evidence. If the evidence is purely circumstantial then past offending my tip the balance with the jury.


Skyryder

[Genestho]

Countries like the USA don't suppress anywhere near the amount of stuff that is here. In fact I don't know if a US judge can suppress anything. With some exceptions that practise doesn't seem to overly compromise the "quality" of that country's justice system.


Well said Mr H!!!
The amount of cases I've been privy to, as have "we the public", the amount of suppression of prior history that's gone on is disgusting. And I suggest, in many cases very relevant!!!!

[Genestho]

Because the jury may form an opinion on whether you committed the crime based on your historical offending and not on the evidence. If the evidence is purely circumstantial then past offending my tip the balance with the jury.


Skyryder
Yep, that's a fact, but....IMHO it's not difficult to see, that in many cases prior offending is an indicator of current and future offending!!! Should be considered as evidence!!!

I could list off the top of my head 6 cases at least!

[Skyryder]

I think there are times when it might be justified. If we were to take a rape trial for instance, if the defence wanted to make the victim's sexual history an issue then absolutely the defendant's criminal history should be opened up to the jury as well - the case of a couple of ex-cops springs to mind...

This is usually the line that those who believe that the defendants history should be put to the court.

But there is a clear distinction on this. One is the credibility of the witness or more to the point the credibilty of the evidence and this is tested in cross examination.

The other is the credibility of the defendent. If the defendent wishes to give evidence then his evidence is open to the same kind of 'testing.'

In the case of rape I agree that it appears to be one sided. The compalinents character gets slagged by the defence but the defendents character is 'out of bounds.' I personley believe that in a rape case where the cahrecter of woman comes under the cross then the defendents history should also be the subject of evidence. However I say with the proviso that there would need to be some kind of deal between the prosecution and the defence by way of a ruling. You bring up the past of the victim then the Judge would allow any historical convictions etc of the defendent to be put to the jury. It would be a trade off that would place the victim in a more comftable position with evidence. Not the perfect solution but I don't know of a better one.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Yep, that's a fact, but....IMHO it's not difficult to see, that in many cases prior offending is an indicator of current and future offending!!! Should be considered as evidence!!!

I could list off the top of my head 6 cases at least!


That may well be but English law is well founded on the principle that you are judged on the evidence of the crime that you are charged with. Not on the probibility that you committed the offence on historical convictions.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Countries like the USA don't suppress anywhere near the amount of stuff that is here. In fact I don't know if a US judge can suppress anything. With some exceptions that practise doesn't seem to overly compromise the "quality" of that country's justice system.

Much of the evidence that is presented in the American courts may well have found its way into the media. As to the quality of their justice system; this is open to debate.

Their use of the plea bargain where a guilty plea to a lesser charge as against a not guilty to a more seriouse charge along with a stiffer sentance does not equate with quality as far as I am concerned. Expediancy is what I would call it.


Skyryder

[Genestho]

That may well be but English law is well founded on the principle that you are judged on the evidence of the crime that you are charged with. Not on the probibility that you committed the offence on historical convictions.


Skyryder
Yes, re-read my post please doll, I know exactly what you're saying, and that's a fact, I was expressing my opinion, based on knowledge!:niceone:

[Skyryder]

Yes, re-read my post please doll, I know exactly what you're saying, and that's a fact, I was expressing my opinion, based on knowledge!:niceone:

You expressed an opinion that that in many cases prior offending is an indicator of current and future offending!!! Should be considered as evidence!!!

That's my point in many cases but 'not' all. So who decides which cases (defendants) that are bought up and which ones are not. See that's the problem. You have one rule for one defendant and another for someone else.


Skyryder

[candor]

I don't mind anyone acting on their beliefs and Karam has done just that.
Skyryder

Really - even when their beliefs have much rational evidence against them, and while being bought to fruition result in disrespect and even slander against dead murder victims. If he was acting on beliefs I call that dangerous zealotry under the circumstances, if not then self promoting in some dogged to somehow go down in history. Didn't really go far nuff with the ABs for that some say.

Rosemary McLeods piece in the Dom Post today did the non believers and real victims proud. Not as gullible as Daves churchy rent a bleeding buncha hearts. Shes not having a bar of the innocence and defended the honor of the dead from the long besmirching dehumanising campaign run by the David defense team. He had them / Karam (as a defence legal fees bludger) objectify his family so the jury wouldn't relate. He never stopped the abuse and character assasinations on all these people - not once.

[Dooly]

I'm just glad we have another Bain thread... God - it was a whole day without one!

Is it possible to have a waving thread combined with a Bain thread.
Hell, that would be a landmark here.:niceone:

[marty]

Is it possible to have a waving thread combined with a Bain thread.
Hell, that would be a landmark here.:niceone:

only if it included some lanesplitting, and beer.

[spudchucka]

Is it possible to have a waving thread combined with a Bain thread.
Hell, that would be a landmark here.:niceone:

I haven't seen a good beer thread on here for ages either. I guess that a Bain thread sort of qualifies as a gun thread though.

[Swoop]

Can anyone shed any light on who killed JFK and Marilyn Munroe?
That's easy! The Butler did it.

Ding! Next.

[Quasievil]

I heard the recording this morning and...........well I heard I shot the prick, seemed plain enough to me

Anyway I reckon there are two killers, Robin killed the family, David killed Robin but thats just a theory

[Pussy]

That's easy! The Butler did it.

Ding! Next.

You're miles off the mark.....


It was Scott Watson....

[Skyryder]

Really - even when their beliefs have much rational evidence against them, and while being bought to fruition result in disrespect and even slander against dead murder victims. If he was acting on beliefs I call that dangerous zealotry under the circumstances, if not then self promoting in some dogged to somehow go down in history. Didn't really go far nuff with the ABs for that some say.

Rosemary McLeods piece in the Dom Post today did the non believers and real victims proud. Not as gullible as Daves churchy rent a bleeding buncha hearts. Shes not having a bar of the innocence and defended the honor of the dead from the long besmirching dehumanising campaign run by the David defense team. He had them / Karam (as a defence legal fees bludger) objectify his family so the jury wouldn't relate. He never stopped the abuse and character assasinations on all these people - not once.

Karam acted in the belief of an injustice. I thought you of all people could understand that. Apparantly not. Or are you so self centred that acting on a belief only applies to yourself and those that share your views.

For the record I think Karam got it wrong..............but fortunately society allows for that.


Skyryder

[madbikeboy]

I heard the recording this morning and...........well I heard I shot the prick, seemed plain enough to me

Anyway I reckon there are two killers, Robin killed the family, David killed Robin but thats just a theory

The problem that I have with that theory is that if DB killed RB, then he could have walked out of the house and the average joe on the street would have considered him a hero...

It doesn't compute.

[Quasievil]

The problem that I have with that theory is that if DB killed RB, then he could have walked out of the house and the average joe on the street would have considered him a hero...

It doesn't compute.

Yeah but he is a weal pussy and wouldnt have wanted to admit it and be someones prison Bitch

[PrincessBandit]

Why on earth would he tell the emergency phone operator "I shot the prick"?

[Flatcap]

Why on earth would he tell the emergency phone operator "I shot the prick"?

Because he was unhinged..?

[Hitcher]

Why on earth would he tell the emergency phone operator "I shot the prick"?

He didn't. Download the tape of the conversation and listen to it. Carefully.

[Grahameeboy]

Sorry Mark, only David Bain knows the true answer to that question, everything else is emotional conjecture!

Me, I have absolutely no idea but I don't think he should get any compensation without Innocense being less subjective! I.E. Beyond all reasonable doubt!

It's a bit like common sense, whose version is correct?

In Bain's case the jury is the "official" version but..........?

The jury said not guilty on the evidence presented but does the rest of the country agree, beyond all reasonable doubt?

He who pays the piper should call the tune, taxpayers here are paying, so far (as a taxpayer) I don't like the tune?

That's just my personal opinion, unlikely to be taken into account! :oi-grr:

Exactly................................

[NighthawkNZ]

But on second thoughts could this recording be that of a man who has realised the enormity of what he has done??



Or a teenager that is in pure shock from coming home to find his family killed... covered in blood, going round to see if they are alive (getting himself covered in blood) and then still in shock realising better call 111

fark I can't remember my phone number on a good day, he was struggling to say his phone number... I heard... "I can't re...." possible I cant remember... then he rattles his phone number... Shit I would be farked... my answer would be do a bloody trace

Those that have never seen blood and guts from a dead body, let alone it being family member will never know (including me) but have seen it on others first hand... what its like to go into a state of shock that makes you uncertian of your surroundings...

Whether he is guity of all, some, or just one... or none of the mudrders... nobody will truly know except David... the jury found him innocent... thats enough for me.

Nobody heard "I shot the prick" in the orginal court case... or in any of the other hearings... even the experts heard nothing... and like I said I would love to analise the recording my self and throw a few filters here and there

Someone is just wanting the rumors to continue... let it be


The jury said not guilty on the evidence presented but does the rest of the country agree, beyond all reasonable doubt?
And we shouldn't we were't in the court room every day hearing all the evidence, we only hear how the media inturpted some of it

[AllanB]

I'm pretty sure he said "look at the size of my dick"

Way past giving a big fat royal hoot really - probably like most of NZ. :sleep:

[ManDownUnder]

I still reckon it was "I've got a stick"

[skidMark]

hmmmm why was steven never considered to have done it?

steven couldve killed them off... then took on david, david had a big fight with him etc and ended up killing off steven to save himself...

fuck knows... unless you were in the courtroom for every day of the trial you are never going to know all the evidence etc etc...:argue:

[XxKiTtiExX]

Heard the 111 call this morning and can't say that I managed to hear David actually saying "I shot the prick." All it sounded like was a guy having extreme difficulty breathing.

I'm sitting on the fence still. Who am I to know wether or not David is innocent or guilty. There is far to much "for and against." At the end of the day only David knows the truth.

[NighthawkNZ]

All it sounded like was a guy having extreme difficulty breathing

Good sign of shock

[Maha]

I still reckon it was "I've got a stick"

Yeah, ''so dont come any closer punk''!...:bash:

[Metalor]

For fucks sake.... just listened to the recording then. You can't take ANYTHING from that whatsoever. Fucking media hyping shi tup all the time, just to make money. They don't give a shit about the guy, just lining their own pockets.

And who gives a fuck whether he shot the father or not? Personally, I would have shaken his hand if he DID shoot him. He'd be a hero, not a criminal (in my mind anyway).

[ynot slow]

On teletext today was comment "the crown were conceeding a lot,the crown were offering consessions" David Bain's chief supporter Joe Karam told reprters yesterday.Defence council chief Micheal Reid replied that was utter nonsence.Think Karam is trying to keep in the media to rake more support for the next episode in womens magazines.

[skidMark]

On teletext today was comment "the crown were conceeding a lot,the crown were offering consessions" David Bain's chief supporter Joe Karam told reprters yesterday.Defence council chief Micheal Reid replied that was utter nonsence.Think Karam is trying to keep in the media to rake more support for the next episode in womens magazines.


is your enter key broken?

paragraphs are fuking choice.

[ManDownUnder]

Does that actually make a difference? Serious question here. Yes, we are all innocent until proven guilty under law. I totally support that premise, heaven help me, one day I might be accused of a crime.

To my mind yes - if jury gets one trial wrong then it can have a lingering effect toward the outomce of any other/next cases. Which I think is wrong. Each needs to be proven or disproven on the basic principles of motive, and opportunity.


If I am innocent I have nothing to fear surely? I get a fair trial anyway.

I'm with you there... 98% anyway. I agreed with what you say because I don't know of a better system.

[Hinny]

For fucks sake.... just listened to the recording then. You can't take ANYTHING from that whatsoever. .

Maybe you need a new stereo.
I bet you can't make out the phone number he gives either.

[short-circuit]

All it sounded like was a guy having extreme difficulty breathing.

The whole phone call sounded contrived to me...I've seen better acting on Shortland Street.

[peasea]

The whole phone call sounded contrived to me...I've seen better acting on Shortland Street.

Acting?????? You mean Shortland Street isn't real?

[short-circuit]

is your enter key broken?

paragraphs are fuking choice.

Spelling's is ace and punctuation is magnificent.

[PrincessBandit]

Why on earth would he tell the emergency phone operator "I shot the prick"?


He didn't. Download the tape of the conversation and listen to it. Carefully.

Exactly - I did listen and can honestly say I didn't hear those words at all. My opinion is that it's a clutching-at-straws effort to salvage something (I don't know what) from a botched investigation. I know it's hard to tell by looking at someone to judge their innocence or otherwise but I'm glad he was found not guilty and hope that it can finally be the end of this drawn out tragedy.

[MattRSK]

I hope my engineering degree doesn't take 13 years.

[ynot slow]

is your enter key broken?

paragraphs are fuking choice.

Your caps broken,was how it was reported on teletext.

At least I can spell,enough of a gap for paragraph.


Hitcher has an apprentice me thinks.

[James Deuce]

I hope my engineering degree doesn't take 13 years.

I started one 24 years ago.

Not.

Finished.

Say no more.

[hospitalfood]

:niceone:Hospitalfoods just to stupid to work that out.

whatever, the first jury did not even hear about the dad sleeping with his daughter you muppet.

[oldrider]

When I was growing up in this country, murder was "rare", now it looks like it has become the "National Pastime"! :2guns: :o

[NighthawkNZ]

When I was growing up in this country, murder was "rare", now it looks like it has become the "National Pastime"! :2guns: :o

I might give it a go... I could murder a coffee right about now... :rolleyes:

[Hinny]

If I ever get in trouble I want Michael Reed QC for my lawyer.
He's as good as OJ's lawyers.

[Mom]

I'm with you there... 98% anyway. I agreed with what you say because I don't know of a better system.

I will take this one step further for consideration.

Imagine this scenario if you will. A slime ball, dirt bag, disgusting, revolting sicko, who also happens to be a well respected pillar of the community makes some inappropriate advances to your son, among others. By inappropriate I am talking about buying him things like cell phones, top ups, PS2 games, oh a little (not really a little to be fair) financial contribution towards an overseas trip for him and a mate. Tells the travel agent he is a friend of the family mind you so as not to arouse too much suspicion. Buys them hot chocolates, takes them back to his house for a swim, you get the picture.

After finding a printout from the travel agent with this vile mans name and phone number on it, you ring him to ask WTF GOES ON?

His explanation leaves you cold all over and rather than reassure you, makes you really worried. You go to the Police and talk to them about what is happening. They are VERY interested, as there is a charge available to them, it is called grooming. Your son is just over the legal age of consent, so grooming does not apply. They decide to bring him in anyway for a bit of a chat, warn him he is over stepping what is considered acceptable in normal society. You warn him off your boy, as do the cops and it is over right?

Eighteen months later, you get a phone call from a decetective who wants to talk to you about this dirt bag, apparently he has just been arrested for indecent assault on a 16 year old boy! So gleefully you go to the Police Station and give a statement about your previous experience of this thing pretending to be a wonderful member of society. He case is sent to court and there is a depositions hearing. You duley turn up to support your statement as requested, and your statement is deemed inadmissable because it is prejudicial to this cnut's case. YOU WHAT! Yes folks, the fact that the cops had warned him off inappropriate contact with young men was prejudicial to his case.

He went on to sucessfully defend himself against the indecent assault charge I might add. Good for him. I have money on the fact that this was not the first time, nor will it be the last. Why the hell at the low end of the offending scale was your statement disallowed? Hope this (little smaller as a result of the case) pillar of the community does not do something again, for the sake of the legal system that does not allow knowledge to be shared.

[Hinny]

whatever, the first jury did not even hear about the dad sleeping with his daughter you muppet.

Apparently the high rate of incest in this country is mind boggling.
It does not seem to lead to parents killing off those they 'love'.
In or out, the 'evidence' of any in or out has little relevance to the interpretation of plausible conclusions given the rest of the evidence in my opinion.
Much like many of the other stories Laniet is reported to have come out with.
The suppressed evidence is far more compelling to my way of thinking. I can understand why the defence team fought so hard to have it suppressed.

Watching Michael Reed at work is like watching a magician. A veritable tour de force. Some may say he comes across as a bumbling plonker with a plum in his mouth, but to get that result I think is pure genius.
Putting words in witnesses mouths, making illogical conclusions from their evidence etc., with conviction, would no doubt have bamboozled the jury to the point that they only heard his interpretation of the evidence. No matter how illogical it may have been.

I can appreciate the calls for the adoption of the inquisitorial approach to jurisprudence.
Kind of bizarre that it should come from both camps!

[Winston001]

I will take this one step further for consideration.

Imagine this scenario if you will. A slime ball, dirt bag, disgusting, revolting sicko, who also happens to be a well respected pillar of the community makes some inappropriate advances to your son, among others....

Eighteen months later, he has just been arrested for indecent assault on a 16 year old boy! So gleefully you go to the Police Station and give a statement about your previous experience of this thing pretending to be a wonderful member of society. He case is sent to court and there is a depositions hearing. You duly turn up to support your statement as requested, and your statement is deemed inadmissable because it is prejudicial to this cnut's case. YOU WHAT! Yes folks, the fact that the cops had warned him off inappropriate contact with young men was prejudicial to his case.



I don't want to minimise or dismiss your experience - I'd be drawn to violence in your shoes. That was a shocking experience.

The rule simply is that only evidence directly relating to the offence can be adduced in court. So something which happened months before to another person and no charges arise, is not relevant to the current case.

Clearly the Crown tried in your situation to bring in your evidence because otherwise you would never have even known about the prosecution. The judge must have ruled it out.

There is a rule of where evidence of propensity to offend is admissible. It's an exception to the norm and tough to get from a judge.

You were probably told this but its hard to accept. :hug:

[Winston001]

Watching Michael Reed at work is like watching a magician. A veritable tour de force. Some may say he comes across as a bumbling plonker with a plum in his mouth, but to get that result I think is pure genius.
Putting words in witnesses mouths, making illogical conclusions from their evidence etc., with conviction, would no doubt have bamboozled the jury to the point that they only heard his interpretation of the evidence. No matter how illogical it may have been.

Personally I'd never heard of the guy before - if he has a criminal practise its not well known.

He and Helen Cull were either brilliantly stupid or just ordinarily good. Probably the latter.

So long as the defence could bring experts to dispute the Crown evidence, it was always likely the jury would be confused enough to acquit. Standard defence stuff. Make enough noise over 13 weeks and acquittal has to be a strong chance.



I can appreciate the calls for the adoption of the inquisitorial approach to jurisprudence.
Kind of bizarre that it should come from both camps!

Yes it arises every few years. Don't know. Used to think the European system of investigating magistrates was better than our "battle by champions" but many democracies still use the British model. It's robust and the judge doesn't get to control the prosecution.

[Winston001]

If I ever get in trouble I want Michael Reed QC for my lawyer.
He's as good as OJ's lawyers.

That's cos he's a witch!

[Mom]

You were probably told this but its hard to accept. :hug:

Interestingly enough, I was not told this, I was told that it was pathetic that my statement was deemed inadmissable, when my sons statement was not. The court/judge/legal system needs to re-think this as far as I am concerned. Yet again today I read that a bloke is convicted for raping and killing a little girl (teenager) who has raped before.

Something is really friggen wrong with a society that not only allows but seemingly supports denying the truth to be heard about someone, when they are being tried for a similar crime. I go back to my original statement here. If I am innocent of the crime, then I am innocent and am guaranteed a fair trail. No matter what I may have done in the past, this time I did not do it. The evidence will prove I did not do it, ergo I have nothing to worry about. I am sorry but nothing will convince me that knowing about previous form/history sholuld influence a jury. They are very clearly instructed to disregard anything that has gone before and only judge on the evidence presented to them.

Not one single juror on the David Bain jury could hand on heart say they knew nothing about what had happened before I am certain, yet they were allowed to serve and judge.

[candor]

Karam acted in the belief of an injustice. I thought you of all people could understand that. Apparantly not. Or are you so self centred that acting on a belief only applies to yourself...

For the record I think Karam got it wrong..............but fortunately society allows for that.

Skyryder

Way off base. Of all the people you could meet I am the least likely to act on a belief (without strong evidence to back it), and the most suspicious of those who do adopt causes. I'm a woman of science overall - so concerned not to judge what I do not know (even if I may have no trouble formng an opinion) that I would NEVER go on a jury. Several times have declined under the religious belief opt out, saying it is against my belief to judge things when I do not know. I add that in too many trials there is no ability to know - and the material that is presented is so manipulated by Judges and lawyers as to often present no relation to salient facts. They haven't sued me yet!

My strong "belief" is in not expending energy on passions - anger and drive like Karams is typically borne of ego and causes cancer of cardiac issues so is best avoided unless you've a hankering to die young. To have such hyperactive passion over a (perceived) injustice - especially when it likely isn't - is not admirable in my book but certifiable. Unless you're people of red setters or Weimeraner type. Developmentally it is 5 year olds who stomp and stew over apparent "its not fair" scenarios, and often immature adults who are attracted to dramas with whiffs of unfairness. Life is not fair - thats why its so interesting, but please set priorities on "altruism" with some discernment - work with reality in a mingling way not by playing god.

If Karam had turned his inner wound to some really concerning cause like starving kids caused by loan usury in the third world, I might have more sympathy. In this case he should have just had a cup of tea and after doing some digging walked away - but I believe at some point it just became about winning to him. Expending such energy on a well looked after Kiwi in one of the best prisons in the world - who likely did do heinous things but got promoted from arrested adolescent paper boy to engineer - is a disgrace.

We are put on this earth once, and have a grateful responsibility to use the time well. I just think that those who celebrate Karam could find far better specimens to put on pedestals if they have such a need. But never mind me - I also think the same re Edmund Hilary. Maybe I was born wrong side of the world. But heros to me are everyday people who don't seek the limelight - Karam is out of perspective, he is a fanatic who has won over the weak minded (including some journos) imo.

The cannabis buyer who took a bullet for the cops (they said he was just dropping by for coffee on 3 news tonight!) in Napier. The guy I know spending everyday at the bedside of his son who is brain injured from a rugby game, the ABs who visited him a couple of days ago, the 17 year old I work with who has for 2 years nursed her puppy love who has serious cancer (and her Dad just died) yet still smiles at work and is a light to many adults and peers - I have ultimate respect for that girl.... yup I can reel off about 1000 Kiwis I'd admire more

Karam thread anyone? Heard a DJ saying "Bain sees him as a Father figure"... audible gulp.

[98tls]

[QUOTE=candor;1129256735

We are put on this earth once, and have a grateful responsibility to use the time well. [/QUOTE] Yep agreed though whats important is we have choices as to what we find using the time well,Mr Karam obviously felt he was,wether you or anyone else agrees is irrevelant i guess,not exactly rocket science eh.

[MattRSK]

Thread Closed

[candor]

Yep agreed though whats important is we have choices as to what we find using the time

Agreed, the essential prob I have is that K just seems so cut off from the victims perspective. I'd say his investigation was biased by his relationship with the survivor, and dislike that much

[Skyryder]

Interestingly enough, I was not told this, I was told that it was pathetic that my statement was deemed inadmissable, when my sons statement was not. The court/judge/legal system needs to re-think this as far as I am concerned. Yet again today I read that a bloke is convicted for raping and killing a little girl (teenager) who has raped before.

Something is really friggen wrong with a society that not only allows but seemingly supports denying the truth to be heard about someone, when they are being tried for a similar crime. I go back to my original statement here. If I am innocent of the crime, then I am innocent and am guaranteed a fair trail. No matter what I may have done in the past, this time I did not do it. The evidence will prove I did not do it, ergo I have nothing to worry about. I am sorry but nothing will convince me that knowing about previous form/history sholuld influence a jury. They are very clearly instructed to disregard anything that has gone before and only judge on the evidence presented to them.

Not one single juror on the David Bain jury could hand on heart say they knew nothing about what had happened before I am certain, yet they were allowed to serve and judge.


As you state nothing will convince you that knowing about previous form/history sholuld influence a jury. But with others it might. There are clear reasons why past history should not be bought up in a trial and that is so the jury find on the evidence presented to court in relation to the charge. It's one of the fundemental aspects of our legal system along with innocent untill proven guilty.

That it works is evident in the Davis case.

The Bain trial is a different matter. There is no way that information that jurors heard prior to the trial can be completely erased from opinion. I'm sure that if he had have been found guilty then many would have argued that the jurors may have been prejidiical due to the publicity and media attention. In many ways it was a no win situation. In hindsight I think a pardon may have been the best option but on this I'm not too sure that it was legally possible.

The justice system is not infalliable nor is justice it's goal. Most important, and we sometimes forget this, is that the law is upheld in seeking convictions and in most cases the law does not allow historical convictions to be submitted as evidence.


Skyryder

[short-circuit]

Thread Closed

Why? Past your bed time?

[Mom]

The justice system is not infalliable nor is justice it's goal. Skyryder

Pardon me? You are a lawyer that specialises in defense work eh?

[Skyryder]

Way off base. Of all the people you could meet I am the least likely to act on a belief (without strong evidence to back it), and the most suspicious of those who do adopt causes. I'm a woman of science overall - so concerned not to judge what I do not know (even if I may have no trouble formng an opinion) that I would NEVER go on a jury. Several times have declined under the religious belief opt out, saying it is against my belief to judge things when I do not know. I add that in too many trials there is no ability to know - and the material that is presented is so manipulated by Judges and lawyers as to often present no relation to salient facts. They haven't sued me yet!

My strong "belief" is in not expending energy on passions - anger and drive like Karams is typically borne of ego and causes cancer of cardiac issues so is best avoided unless you've a hankering to die young. To have such hyperactive passion over a (perceived) injustice - especially when it likely isn't - is not admirable in my book but certifiable. Unless you're people of red setters or Weimeraner type. Developmentally it is 5 year olds who stomp and stew over apparent "its not fair" scenarios, and often immature adults who are attracted to dramas with whiffs of unfairness. Life is not fair - thats why its so interesting, but please set priorities on "altruism" with some discernment - work with reality in a mingling way not by playing god.

If Karam had turned his inner wound to some really concerning cause like starving kids caused by loan usury in the third world, I might have more sympathy. In this case he should have just had a cup of tea and after doing some digging walked away - but I believe at some point it just became about winning to him. Expending such energy on a well looked after Kiwi in one of the best prisons in the world - who likely did do heinous things but got promoted from arrested adolescent paper boy to engineer - is a disgrace.

We are put on this earth once, and have a grateful responsibility to use the time well. I just think that those who celebrate Karam could find far better specimens to put on pedestals if they have such a need. But never mind me - I also think the same re Edmund Hilary. Maybe I was born wrong side of the world. But heros to me are everyday people who don't seek the limelight - Karam is out of perspective, he is a fanatic who has won over the weak minded (including some journos) imo.

The cannabis buyer who took a bullet for the cops (they said he was just dropping by for coffee on 3 news tonight!) in Napier. The guy I know spending everyday at the bedside of his son who is brain injured from a rugby game, the ABs who visited him a couple of days ago, the 17 year old I work with who has for 2 years nursed her puppy love who has serious cancer (and her Dad just died) yet still smiles at work and is a light to many adults and peers - I have ultimate respect for that girl.... yup I can reel off about 1000 Kiwis I'd admire more

Karam thread anyone? Heard a DJ saying "Bain sees him as a Father figure"... audible gulp.

At the end of the day we all act on our beliefs. We do things that we believe are right and in most cases this is governed by our conscience. You may not agree with what Karam has done.......that's your choice so is your defination of heroes.

As for Bain seeing Karam as a father figure.................I'd watch out. So on this we can agree or disagree..............your choice.


Skyryder

[candor]

Hilarious Mom. What an insult - poor SR. About as bad as the day someone suggested in earnest and meaning it as a compliment that maybe I should go into politics. But SR is right. It is about adjudicating, keeping things ticking along without too many vigilante wars. Not Justice. Just like small claims court is often an exercise in futility. "Pay the money".... 20 years passes.

[98tls]

Hilarious Mom. What an insult - poor SR. About as bad as the day someone suggested in earnest and meaning it as a compliment that maybe I should go into politics. But SR is right. It is about adjudicating, keeping things ticking along without too many vigilante wars. Not Justice. Just like small claims court is often an exercise in futility. "Pay the money".... 20 years passes. Actually mate i reckon its about thinking,whilst theres many different opinions that sometimes cause heated debate methinks without said differing opinions where would we be eh,in a far worse place methinks.

[smoky]

Bain is innocent. the fact that there are muppets on here who believe otherwise is sad.
all you "bain is guilty" crew, are you really so stupid .... I pity your parents!

do you really think your single opinion is more valid that 12 opinions of others who know the facts ?

if you think he is guilty, you are very fucking stupid! and i suggest you kill yourself as a service to the rest of the world. and don't leave a mess !!!

I bet you got some red for that, upsetting the flat earth society
At lest the Bain case is giving all of us who have nothing to do on a Friday night, something to do

[smoky]

...suspicious of those who do adopt causes.

My strong "belief" is in not expending energy on passions - anger and drive ...is typically borne of ego and causes cancer of cardiac issues so is best avoided unless you've a hankering to die young. To have such hyperactive passion over a (perceived) injustice ... is not admirable in my book but certifiable.
.... stomp and stew over apparent "its not fair" scenarios, and often immature adults who are attracted to dramas with whiffs of unfairness.

.....In this case he should have just had a cup of tea and after doing some digging walked away .......Expending such energy on .... is a disgrace.

We are put on this earth once, and have a grateful responsibility to use the time well. ........ But heros to me are everyday people who don't seek the limelight - Karam is out of perspective, he is a fanatic .....


I think if I were locked up inside for a crime I didn't do, and no means of fighting it, or family to help - I would be thankful for some hyperactive passion from some immature adults, over the injustice

[candor]

We do things that we believe are right and in most cases this is governed by our conscience.
Skyryder

Hmmm, and often no-one (often even the conscience sufferer) can define why one course is taken over another. Valkyrie, Mother Theresa Karam and I suppose even the big H :devil2:were acting on a noisy conscience. Wonder on that word - its not far from a cross of conscious and science?

[candor]

I think if I were locked up inside for a crime I didn't do...

Can be arranged. Plenty here will no doubt support any KBers in deep forensic evidence and circumstantial crap when they get in that Every Street dilemna.

[smoky]

…Expending such energy on a well looked after Kiwi in one of the best prisons in the world - who likely did do heinous things but got promoted from arrested adolescent paper boy to engineer - is a disgrace.

You should become a little more educated on the conditions and limitation of prison life before making such ignorant statements

And also I don't think you describe him as a adolescent - he was 20, he was educated and doing well in his chosen field of study
And he's far from being an 'engineer' now - I think he completed a course on CAD design, not a degree or anything as stated in some media reports

[steve_t]

You should become a little more educated on the conditions and limitation of prison life before making such ignorant statements


Isn't it wonderful that the prisons are being built with underfloor heating? And that each cell costs more to build than a hotel room? Are those bars REALLY expensive? :argue:

[smoky]

. I'm a woman of science overall - so concerned not to judge what I do not know ....... it is against my belief to judge things when I do not know.
And yet you have made some harsh judgements about Mr Karam, with very little knowledge ?



My strong "belief" is in not expending energy on passions - anger and drive like Karams is typically borne of ego
.... To have such hyperactive passion over a (perceived) injustice ...(is)... certifiable.

Developmentally it is 5 year olds who stomp and stew over apparent "its not fair" scenarios, and often immature adults who are attracted to dramas with whiffs of unfairness.

If Karam had turned his inner wound to some really concerning cause.....
..... I believe at some point it just became about winning to him.

...those who celebrate Karam could find far better specimens to put on pedestals if they have such a need.
... Karam is out of perspective, he is a fanatic who has won over the weak minded (including some journos) imo.

Karam thread anyone? Heard a DJ saying "Bain sees him as a Father figure"... audible gulp.

So you know this man? Or are you just judging his entire character by the way he has been portrayed in the media?

You do realise he was a successful businessman as well, and he did it with no media exposure

He was an AllBlack - when was the last time you saw him use that to gain media attention?

what the hell do you know about the people he's helped in his local community? the help he's given to the schools?

Do you even know anything about his charitable efforts? You might be surprised how involved he is in supporting work for third world development - but he doesn't seek media attention for it.

Unfortunately he needed the media to get the Bain case the exposure it needed.

perhaps your energy is ill focused in judging someone you may know nothing about?

or am I wrong

[candor]

My point was I won't judge in the form of legal verdicts. Otherwise it is natural to assess and form best guesses re things we don't know 100%. Lighten up. I'm not claiming to know him intimately or be a Karam authority but I do judge his publicised activities as foolish (don't worry - that won't jail him). It is opinion and as such could well be wrong. Just like yours. Unless of course you are much closer to Karam than you let on. A dead ringer maybe? Yes the crystal I'm swinging tells me its true. Ill focussed - nah, only if it preoccupies me for the next 20 years, which is unlikely. But I stand by that our prisons are nice - as I know many people who've gone out to offend so they can go back there... and have worked in Justice facilities. Mmmm spa pools, mmmm family days, mmmm gyms, mmm libraries, mmm lotsa touchy feely do-gooders and drugs, mmm bad boy loving gfs on tap, conjugal visits - ahhhh that criminal chic!

[98tls]

as I know many people who've gone out to offend so they can go back there... and have worked in Justice facilities. Mmmm spa pools, mmmm family days, mmmm gyms, mmm libraries, mmm lotsa touchy feely do-gooders and drugs, mmm bad boy loving gfs on tap, conjugal visits - ahhhh that criminal chic! Retards beyond saving/never seen one in my time/one set of weights only access is to long-termers for an hour a day/never bothered/you watch to many movies/not in my time.

[candor]

Retards beyond saving/never seen one in my time/one set of weights only access is to long-termers for an hour a day/never bothered/you watch to many movies/not in my time.

Well for spas try transfer to hospital based justice facilities / for gym try some low sec units - too many movies re what the drugs or the do-gooders? / no groupies or conjugals in your time - must have picked wrong place like some remote tightly run place. I don't deny there are downsides, often registers on the faces in the ones you call "retards" in the dock as they think "wasn't careful what I wished for".

[98tls]

Well for spas try transfer to hospital based justice facilities / for gym try some low sec units - too many movies re what the drugs or the do-gooders? / no groupies or conjugals in your time - must have picked wrong place like some remote tightly run place. I don't deny there are downsides, often registers on the faces in the ones you call "retards" in the dock as they think "wasn't careful what I wished for". LOL yea fair call,wont be taking your advice but thanks all the same.:niceone:Left it all behind many moons ago.

[ynot slow]

Come what may in 12 months we'll be saying David Who,much like it was for the first 10yrs of his jail term,till the court retrial was granted by Privvy council.

[Hinny]

He didn't. Download the tape of the conversation and listen to it. Carefully.


He did. Download the tape of the conversation and listen to it. Carefully.

[Hinny]

I wonder what he was going to say before he was interupted.
Perhaps..'them all'.

[Winston001]

I just think that those who celebrate Karam could find far better specimens to put on pedestals if they have such a need. But never mind me - I also think the same re Edmund Hilary...... But heros to me are everyday people who don't seek the limelight

KB - what a place - from Bain to Hillary. :rolleyes:

Ed Hillary deserves the admiration and respect this nation accords him. He was a humble man who couldn't believe his good fortune. For example in his 70s he still spoke with wonder about finding himself at a dinner sitting next to the Queen Mother and she was genuinely interested in him. An ordinary bloke for New Zealand. It never seemed quite real.

This man spent his life raising money for schools, bridges etc in Nepal and helping people. He never sought the limelight except to gain support for projects.

[Hinny]

Isn't it wonderful that the prisons are being built with underfloor heating? And that each cell costs more to build than a hotel room? Are those bars REALLY expensive? :argue:

I've always found bars to be really expensive. Even with my VIP card!

[Skyryder]

I don't want to resurrect olde ground but there is a piece in today's Chch Press on the Bain case. For those that belive Bain is innocent (or guilty) it's worth a read. Not much there that has not been said but it's nice 'concise' piece of writing that puts Bains trial in its true perspecitive.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Posted twice by mistake so Ive deleted this hope it works mods can blow this if they want to

[Hinny]

How about scanning it for those of us who don't get the Press?

[Hitcher]

Or indeed posting a Stuff link...

[Skyryder]

How about scanning it for those of us who don't get the Press?

I would if I could. Maybe someone else can but next time you a re in your local library. They should have an edition of the Chch Press


Skyryder

[Hitcher]

Throw us a fricken bone, please Skywriter. Section and page number? Author? Opinion piece or reportage?

[Hinny]

Here's a link.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict

[Skyryder]

Throw us a fricken bone, please Skywriter. Section and page number? Author? Opinion piece or reportage?

PLENTY OF DOUBT-IN BAIN JURY'S VERDICT by Martin Van Beynen

Christchurch Press June 20 2009 A17


It's a dissection on the jury as the title shows.




Skyryder

[Hitcher]

Now read. A well compiled and thought-provoking piece.

[Hinny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wxrFEgkkX4&feature=related
Dr Philip Rose (I can't) is not as convincing as Clare Werbeloff. (Chk chk Boom)
Perhaps he's not really Australian.

[oldrider]

The more (indisputable?) facts (evidence from the trials) I read and the more I see of David Bain, the more I believe he did it.

That article almost lines up with my own thoughts and "feelings" about the whole sordid affair.

I was once guilty of wanting the death penalty to be reintroduced but that was vindictive frustration with the types being released out into the community!

New Zealand Law and order, Justice and corrections will need an extensive makeover and "sooner" rather than "later" before I could ever support the death penalty for any crime in this country!

[Patrick]

Bain is innocent. the fact that there are muppets on here who believe otherwise is sad.
all you "bain is guilty" crew, are you really so stupid you cannot imagine another way he got bruises and scratches ? maybe fainted after finding his whole family dead ? I pity your parents!
have you considered the possibility the dad changed his clothes ?
do you really think your single opinion is more valid that 12 opinions of others who know the facts ?

if you think he is guilty, you are very fucking stupid! and i suggest you kill yourself as a service to the rest of the world. and don't leave a mess !!! or do it before your son comes home from his paper round !!!

Guess I am a stupid muppet then..... choosing to examine the evidence in totality rather than the whims and fantasies of the defence team.

As were the original jury members... and the appeal court (twice?), and the privvy council once... then the privvy council decided to get rid of the issue by ordering a retrial. Go figure.


A few more points for you to consider:



Oh yeah and of course you'd change into some nice fresh gears after slaughtering your family but just before blowing your brains out at the most awkward angle possible eh?

How I saw it..... but not just this snippet. The whole post is tops.


whatever, the first jury did not even hear about the dad sleeping with his daughter you muppet.

And here it is.... the only "evidence" that Robin did it.... in comparison to short circuits thread, which is well worth a re read, hospital food..........

The defence did a great job. Blame the dead ones, accuse them of all the sins in the world, but try real hard to prevent the trial, (original and this one....) and have suppression of stuff which was against BAIN (as lawyers will do)... Pfffttttttt.

Tui Bill Board. Robin did it..... Yeah right.

Probably posted somewhere else, but....

1. Now David Bain has been found not guilty, he is going to become a photographer, specializing in family shots.

2. What would it take for a Bain family reunion? Just one more bullet....

3. Bain verdict out. Not guilty. It was piss poor that none of his familyn were in court to support him.

4. David Bain happy hour. First 5 shots free....

5. David Bain has been selected for the All Blacks in place of Richard KAHUI on the wing. He is not very fast, but he will leave the 1st five for dead.

6. Definition of scared? KARAM hearing BAIN thinking of him as a father.

7. Bain off to celebrate the win at KFC, said he could murder a family pack.

Probably others..... lets hear them.

[candor]

http://counterspin.co.nz/?q=retrial

This website has a petition on it to try and prevent Bain getting compensation + all the overwhealming evidence of guilt including suppressed stuff. Like Arawa telling friends David had the whole family scared after threatening them with guns. A read of the links has you feeling sorry for the petrified murder victims gathered together in the house quite unusually by Davids insistence on a family meeting. Looking at all that evidence, one can only conclude the jury were not the brightest or best informed or was bamboozled (BS).

A new low with Karam telling a murder victims brother that he hadn't known his own brother. All the money Karam has milked from this tragedy with cool premeditation -that takes someone really special I say. It is good for the much slandered victims that this website exists.

Petition may fail on reflection. This is a country where child rapist murderers who evaded the rape bit of the charge get to sue newspapers for compo which accidentally mention they are "rapist/murderers" - as they were only charged and so convicted of the murder (to save cops work as the sentence for both is no different). BTW it would not be defamation anywhere else as a murderer has no fame to lose. Only here...

Do you think its hard to back out of a 15 year lie? You'd be worried about Karam and Holmes reactions?

[Mully]

FWIW - "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent"

All David's lawyer had to do was introduce "reasonable doubt" - i.e. the jury had to be absolutely certain that David did commit the murders or they had to find him "Not Guilty" (perhaps the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" would be more appropriate).

David's lawyer did precisely that. A task made easier by 15 years of media "softening-up" by Mr Karam and his ilk.

From what I've read (and to be honest, I was over it a looooong time ago), there is some evidence which shows that Robin killed everybody else and David killed Robin. An angle (as far as I know) not pursued by the Crown.

That being said, the premise of the "I shot the prick" phone call was stretching the imagination to breaking point, and was rightfully (IMO) discarded by the judge.

My thoughts are that David will get a sizable chunk of "compensation" from the Crown and no petition will make a blind bit of difference. (Citizens Initiated Referendum, anyone?)

(That also being said, and to play Devil's advocate for a moment, Karam has a point about the brother not seeing Robin for some years - mental illness (for argument's sake) can present at any age)

[Swoop]

A new low with Karam telling a murder victims brother that he hadn't known his own brother.
I'm surprised that this brother didn't know that the husband & wife were living separate lives. Real close family, huh?

[thumpameat]

joe karam was been paid 90 bucks an hour, with tax payers money to research and support david thru his trial, thats a good hourly rate, for an unskilled person, would buy some nice bikes