paralympics 2012

[eFestivals]

But you are pretty much telling us the order of phone calls and who to tells us nothing.

where the4 call to a lawyer is concerned, yes, it tells you nothing.

Whether it was an accident or deliberate, he needed a lawyer.

There's no getting away from that fact. Getting good advice and guidance is just as applicable to the innocent as the guilty.

And no one has said he is guilty or not guilty... Quiet the opposite but you are choosing to ignore them. As usual.

someone has said that the call to his lawyer suggests guilt - something I've chosen to not ignore.

Because it does not suggest guilt. Not a jot of it. It suggests only that he needed the services of a lawyer (which everything that has happened since proves as true!!!!).

[eFestivals]

One element may well be that he choose to phone someone other than ambulance first. That is going to be a major tick against him without doubt if its true his phone call was to his lawyer.

If she was already dead there would be no point calling an ambulance. Everything that's come out so far as strongly suggested that she was dead before anyone arrived (from the "died in his arms" thing), and so perhaps before anyone was called.

It's probably impossible to establish if calls were made before or after her death (it certainly will be if she was dead before anyone arrived).

Guilty or not, calling the police would give him no help in his situation. So a call elsewhere before them is sensible.

Are people not allowed to be sensible after something bad has happened?

[eFestivals]

I don't think Neil has watched enough detective movies

true, and neither do I suck up the Daily Mail which presents fiction as fact.

It's because I'm working only to the facts that I'm pointing out the truth that a call to a lawyer CANNOT be indicative of anything towards his guilt.

Anyone who takes that it is is in stupid-land. But stupid-land is what this country is so I'm really not surprised.

[abdoujaparov]

It's because I'm working only to the facts that I'm pointing out the truth that a call to a lawyer CANNOT be indicative of anything towards his guilt.

[abdoujaparov]

someone has said that the call to his lawyer suggests guilt - something I've chosen to not ignore.

[eFestivals]

I think society (even in SA) would reasonably expect you to contact the emergency service with some urgency as your first port of call following a seriously injury or death of a person due to gunshot wound.

Its all about reasonable doubt. What is reasonable to presume, what is reasonable to doubt.

I think what we are finding is that you are unreasonable Shock horror

no, what we're finding is that one sticks to evidence while you and others make it up out of nothing.

If wanting to defend yourself from an accusation of a crime makes you guilty or increases suspicions of guilt then there's no point in having any justice system whatsoever.

[eFestivals]

that's certainly not what I have said...it's what you've imagined I've said, in the face of everything I've said to the contrary

you've said it "suggests something".

You then got all daily mail and disingenuous and slimy, because you realised you'd been an arse - as proven by you retracting the idea of it suggesting anything at all eventually.

[eFestivals]

Agreed. It's of no evidential value. I've said that at least 87 times....

but only after you'd first said that it "suggests something".

Still you've withdrawn it, because you've recognised my point. Job done.

[eFestivals]

OMG ? Who said guilty ? You keep either misreading or making stuff up!

I can only presume at this stage you have some sort of learning difficulty and it would be unfair to push you further on the issue.

if calling a lawyer for the purposes of defending yourself is possible evidence against you - as you said it was - then there's no fucking point in having lawyers at all.

[eFestivals]

No he didn't... He expanded his point...

It's of no evidential value.

Oh yes he did.

It cannot be suggesting anything towards his guilt if it's "of no evidential value".

[abdoujaparov]

you've said it "suggests something". :rolleyes:You then got all daily mail and disingenuous and slimy, because you realised you'd been an arse - as proven by you retracting the idea of it suggesting anything at all eventually.

[abdoujaparov]

but only after you'd first said that it "suggests something". :rolleyes:Still you've withdrawn it, because you've recognised my point. Job done.

[eFestivals]

I've retracted nothing other than in your imagination. I've changed my opinion not a jot, except in your imagination. Your opinion of OP's actions is worth no more than mine, except in your imagination. Your view of what happened is no more certain than mine, except in your imagination where your opinion is infallible

PMSL

For someone who's done nothing he's ashamed of, you spend an awful lot of your time posting bollocks that is nothing at all to do with what you've been pulled up on to try and divert things and hide your own shame.

Whether he's guilty or not and what we might each think about his guilt is nothing of what I've pulled you up on.

The issue is whether calling a lawyer can be any indication at all in any way towards his guilt.

It cannot be, ever - otherwise only the guilty would bother with a lawyer.

[abdoujaparov]

Oh yes he did.It cannot be suggesting anything towards his guilt if it's "of no evidential value".

[abdoujaparov]

PMSL :lol:For someone who's done nothing he's ashamed of, you spend an awful lot of your time posting bollocks that is nothing at all to do with what you've been pulled up on to try and divert things and hide your own shame. :lol:Whether he's guilty or not and what we might each think about his guilt is nothing of what I've pulled you up on.The issue is whether calling a lawyer can be any indication at all in any way towards his guilt.It cannot be, ever - otherwise only the guilty would bother with a lawyer.

[eFestivals]

Yes it can. You need to look up what evidence means

and we're back to the daily mail again.

Only the guilty need lawyers. Hmm, OK.

[eFestivals]

Yes it can. You need to look up what evidence means

Now this is the funniest things of all yet in this discussion......

Here's the look up for you (OED definition)

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:without evidence, they can’t bring a charge

signs or indications of something:there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

so you are saying it's suggests his guilt after all - your use of "evidence" to the defintion makes it that. It cannot be anything else.

Oh dear.

[abdoujaparov]

and we're back to the daily mail again.Only the guilty need lawyers. Hmm, OK.

[eFestivals]

?

So he was right. You don't understand what evidence is....

I've understood from the very start of this discussion, which is why I pulled abdoujaparov up on what he said.

And it's laughable. Defending yourself from a false accusation of a crime is the very purpose of any justice system, and it's a system that lawyers are an integral part of.

If calling a lawyer is an indication of guilt, there's no point of lawyers or a justice system.

[abdoujaparov]

Now this is the funniest things of all yet in this discussion......Here's the look up for you (OED definition)so you are saying it's suggests his guilt after all - your use of "evidence" to the defintion makes it that. It cannot be anything else.Oh dear.

[abdoujaparov]

I've understood from the very start of this discussion, which is why I pulled abdoujaparov up on what he said. :rolleyes:And it's laughable. Defending yourself from a false accusation of a crime is the very purpose of any justice system, and it's a system that lawyers are an integral part of.If calling a lawyer is an indication of guilt, there's no point of lawyers or a justice system.

[eFestivals]

A piece of information which might suggest one or other set of circumstances is not the same as evidence.

Oh. Who doesn't know what evidence is now?

As I have said repeatedly, I don know whether he is guilty or not because I haven't heard th evidence

whether you know he's guilty or not is not any part of what you've been pulled up on. How many times do i have to say it?

What you've been pulled up on is you suggesting that him calling a lawyer is a suggestion of his guilt.

I keep pointing out that lawyers are an integral part of any justice system, and therefore contact with them for legitimate/professional purposes cannot in any logical or rational sense be used to help decide a person's guilt or not.

[eFestivals]

But no one has claimed that the act of calling a lawyer implies guilt. Not me. Not anyone else. Once again you are responding to things no one has said...

You've said it can suggest guilt, as has Barry.

It cannot suggest guilt, unless lawyers have no purpose in a justice system. It cannot work either logically or rationally - or evidentially - in any other way.

Edited February 22, 2013 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

Oh. Who doesn't know what evidence is now? :lol:whether you know he's guilty or not is not any part of what you've been pulled up on. How many times do i have to say it? :rolleyes:What you've been pulled up on is you suggesting that him calling a lawyer is a suggestion of his guilt.I keep pointing out that lawyers are an integral part of any justice system, and therefore contact with them for legitimate/professional purposes cannot in any logical or rational sense be used to help decide a person's guilt or not.

[eFestivals]

I think the accusation is he phoned his lawyer before the emergency services. Before anyone had accused him of anything.

Only you seem to think that is reasonable

he's holding a dead bodfy FFS.

No one is going to think "it's OK, they'll believe every word I say automatically" in such circumstances, are they?

He knows he's about to come into formal contact with that justice system and come under suspicion of a crime. Only a Barry Fish would think he's going to be allowed to go for breakfast at his favourite eatery.

But hey, lets go with your version and have the Witney Witch and Coulson and Murdoch banged up right now, for having dared to speak to lawyers before speaking to the old bill.