| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 125187 | 2012-06-12 05:52:00 | A dingo took my baby...... | Zippity (58) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1281258 | 2012-06-13 05:13:00 | I have a sister-in-law who likes to bring an absent third party into a discussion to back up an argument she knows nothing about. Sadly that trick just doesn't work on me. If you can't use it don't mention it in the first place. I guess that some of us have led more exciting lives than you then :) |
Zippity (58) | ||
| 1281259 | 2012-06-13 05:25:00 | I guess that some of us have led more exciting lives than you then :) Your logic eludes me. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1281260 | 2012-06-13 05:29:00 | Your logic eludes me. That wouldn't be hard. |
Zippity (58) | ||
| 1281261 | 2012-06-13 05:37:00 | Of course I can't add anything to the discussion - legally. Sadly, my previous work history placed me in positions and in contact with information which I cannot make public. Just don't assume that what you hear and have been told is correct. "if" that's the case, then what ever it is, mustn't have much merit, or be actual proof, other wise if it was then it would be used as proof of guilt and there would be no question that they were in fact guilty. Mind you its easy to say that the police have some sort of "secret " evidence = total BS ;) |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1281262 | 2012-06-13 05:47:00 | That wouldn't be hard. Quite agree.:D |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1281263 | 2012-06-13 05:48:00 | I don't like the way people can get away with things because of "inadmissable evidence". To my my mind if someone is guilty and it can be proven then it should be. If evidence was obtained incorrectly or is flawed in some way then you simply make sure that the jury clearly understands this, and punish any wrong doing on the part of the investigators as a seperate issue. For example if a police officer illegally searches a premises and finds evidence of a crime, providing it can be established the evidence is legit then both the officer and the criminal should be in trouble for their respective actions and not one get off because of the actions of the other. None of which really effects this case. It's been decided and our opinions about it won't alter the verdict. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1281264 | 2012-06-13 05:51:00 | [QUOTE=Zippity;1098675]BS!!!!! I'm not so sure about that, dingos are carnivores and scavengers that hunt and kill live prey. It is unlikely that they would not discriminate between any other small mammal and a human baby, and the presence of humans would mean food for them. Perhaps the local dingos might not have viewed them as a food source if campers did not leave edible rubbish lying around, and the child might still be alive today. One thing that has always bothered me about the innocent vs guilty situation though, is why the option to take pentathol or such other effective 'truth drug' is not offered. I was administered a similar drug some years ago for a medical procedure that required full alertness and cooperation, and again a couple of years back for a major dental procedure. I remember nothing of either experience, but the first specialist was a cheerful sort of chap and during the prior consultation he told me tales of the confessions and secrets they hear during such procedures, but not the gory details unfortunately. He said that some just wouldn't stop talking (obviously not an oral or oesophagal procedure, probably waste disposal unit jammed or some such) and the tales alternated between horror and hilarity. My daughter picked me up after the second experience and said I was funny as a fight all the way home and talked a load of wild rubbish (no surprises there). Back to dingos, if I was Lindy Chamberlain I would have jumped at that option, or not. as the case may be. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1281265 | 2012-06-13 05:53:00 | For example if a police officer illegally searches a premises and finds evidence of a crime, providing it can be established the evidence is legit then both the officer and the criminal should be in trouble for their respective actions and not one get off because of the actions of the other. Quite agree but the sanctions against the officer should be enough to discourage them doing so but I would of thought having the criminal getting off would have been enough so it really shows any officer doing so should be dismissed. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1281266 | 2012-06-13 05:57:00 | If you can't use it don't mention it in the first place. My thoughts exactly. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 1281267 | 2012-06-13 08:14:00 | In Africa we don't have Dingos. We have Hyenas and Wild Dogs. Both will eat anything. I was asleep in a tent, four tractors were ploughing the fields preparing for a wheat crop. I was lying on a low camp stretcher with a hurricane lamp turned low when I was woken by something nudging my chest. I thought it was a tractor driver as one of the machines had been misfiring. I found myself staring into the face of a Hyena, probably about to remove my face. It ran and I took a shot with my .455 revolver but missed. A Baby would not have stood a chance. | mzee (3324) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||