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

**_Gina_** · 11th June 2009, 20:15

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_** · 11th June 2009, 20:17

Originally Posted by jrandom

Whether or not David Bain killed his family, he ain't ever going to kill anyone else.

No truer words spoken.

**_Gina_** · 11th June 2009, 20:21

Originally Posted by YellowDog

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** · 11th June 2009, 20:23

Originally Posted by MsKABC

Happy to be of service.

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

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** · 11th June 2009, 20:25

Originally Posted by madbikeboy

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

**devnull** · 11th June 2009, 20:25

Originally Posted by NDORFN

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_** · 11th June 2009, 20:34

Originally Posted by k14

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** · 11th June 2009, 20:35

Originally Posted by James Deuce

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** · 11th June 2009, 20:45

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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** · 11th June 2009, 20:52

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:Me** · 11th June 2009, 20:54

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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** · 11th June 2009, 21:10

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?

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** · 11th June 2009, 21:12

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