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

**Mom** · 11th June 2009, 19:01

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** · 11th June 2009, 19:02

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.

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** · 11th June 2009, 19:04

Originally Posted by marty

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

pretty much how the country is split i reckon.

Hospitalfoods just to stupid to work that out.

**imdying** · 11th June 2009, 19:08

Originally Posted by hospitalfood

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

**Skyryder** · 11th June 2009, 19:12

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 11th June 2009, 19:13

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** · 11th June 2009, 19:17

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.

**Skyryder** · 11th June 2009, 19:23

Originally Posted by 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...

Best post by far on the subject

Skyryder

**Mom** · 11th June 2009, 19:40

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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** · 11th June 2009, 19:48

Originally Posted by Mom

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** · 11th June 2009, 19:52

Originally Posted by madbikeboy

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** · 11th June 2009, 20:09

Originally Posted by MsKABC

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** · 11th June 2009, 20:12

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

**jrandom** · 11th June 2009, 20:13

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.