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

**ynot slow** · 11th June 2009, 21:37

Originally Posted by madbikeboy

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** · 11th June 2009, 21:39

Originally Posted by MsKABC

This is the theory:

How hopelessly shallow. They don't even take the price of the carpet into consideration.

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** · 11th June 2009, 21:51

Originally Posted by Mom

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** · 11th June 2009, 21:56

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 11th June 2009, 22:00

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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** · 11th June 2009, 22:07

Originally Posted by MisterD

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** · 11th June 2009, 22:17

Originally Posted by T.G.W

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** · 11th June 2009, 22:22

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 11th June 2009, 22:28

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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!

**Skyryder** · 11th June 2009, 22:42

Originally Posted by T.G.W

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!

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** · 12th June 2009, 00:12

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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.