Jump to content
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

paralympics 2012


Guest thetime

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

guilty - yep. But only for her death.

It says nothing of whether it was meant or not.

Nothing about it is odd. He was and is in need of a lawyer, whether he murdered her or killed her by accident.

As I say, I'm very glad that you're not sat on a jury I'm in front of - mind you, your brain is working nothing different to how most brains do, tho that still says nothing about whether he's guilty or not. Welcome to Daily Mail World. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you do have an amazing ability to decide what other people think, irrespective of what they actually write and to reach conclusions about their views which are in direct contradiction of their stated views and opinions.

you said it 'showed something' and was 'odd'. I'm merely being explicit about what you're now trying to back away from because you realise you've been an arse.

We have a different view about what might motivate someone to phone their lawyer in the immediate aftermath of shooting their girlfriend.

This is the 21st century - when nearly everyone is familiar enough about legal processes to know what's what. Anyone who plays dumb about that because of how it might look to a string-em-up brigade is not going to be doing themselves any favours, guilty or not guilty.

One of us may be right. We both may be wrong. But to extrapolate from that to conclude that I have already decided on the man's guilt is an amazing leap.

How can I be wrong by concluding nothing? :lol:

You have reached a conclusion. You stand the chance of being wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no idea whether or not he is guilty. I have not heard all of the evidence,and neither have you. What I have heard is amenable to more than one interpretation. It is perfectly possible that he murdered the girl intentionally - and some aspects of what we have heard would support that view. It is also perfectly possible that he shot her believing that she was someone else, with a degree of recklessness that might amount to murder. It is also possible that he shot her genuinely believing that she was an intruder. I dont know and neither do you. The fact that I, like you, am speculating about what may have happened says nothing about what conclusions either of us may have reached....

All three of those are possible.

Nothing about his call to his lawyer indicates anything towards any one of them. It only indictates tyhat he knew he was needing a lawyer.

Your 'suggests something' suggests NOTHING towards his guilt or not.

But you're saying it suggests something. It's about the same quality of the Pryce jury thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've reached no conclusion, other than in your imagination

yeah right - I suppose the words you said that it "suggests something" was you meaning that it suggests nothing. :lol::lol:

I didnt say it did. I said it may. I strikes me as an odd thing to do. It says nothing about his guilt or otherwise and I've never claimed that it did
It's only 'odd' if he doesn't need a lawyer. :rolleyes:

I know he needed a lawyer at that point, you know he needed a lawyer at that point, and (it's a very easy presumption, he's not brain dead) he knew he needed a lawyer at that pojint.

But you think it's odd for him to call the lawyer we all know he needed.

The only odd thing here is your thinking processes, which the Daily mail would be proud of.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah right - I suppose the words you said that it "suggests something" was you meaning that it suggests nothing. :lol::lol:

It's only 'odd' if he doesn't need a lawyer. :rolleyes:

I know he needed a lawyer at that point, you know he needed a lawyer at that point, and (it's a very easy presumption, he's not brain dead) he knew he needed a lawyer at that pojint.

But you think it's odd for him to call the lawyer we all know he needed.

The only odd thing here is your thinking processes, which the Daily mail would be proud of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said what I've said. You read it however you want and reach whatever conclusion you want. Clearly, you know better what I think than I do

It's you who said "suggests something" but who cannot back that up with anything meaningful when called to account for it.

I've merely said what you've backed away from saying because you've realised you've been a Daily Mail style string-em-up arse.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is odd that one of the first people he contacted after accidentally killing his girlfriend should be his lawyer. It's not what I would have done, and it does seem to me to be suggestive of a guilty mind.

what is being suggested to you is being suggested by your own prejudices.

He called a lawyer because he needed a lawyer, whether he's guilty of having committed a crime or not.

To take anything further from it is meaningless. If you got nicked for something you didn't do and called a lawyer to help you, that call does not suggest your guilt, it only suggests that you need professional advice for the circumstances you're in.

If that call is made before or after you getting nicked it doesn't make any difference. If you know you're about to get nicked then everything about that call is the same - you know you need that advice.

Exactly the same applies with this case.

You are applying meaningless prejudices, and those prejudices are swaying your opinion.

No doubt you'd be outraged if someone deemed you guilty or suggested you're more likely to be guilty only on the basis that you'd got legal advice.

Does that mean that I am, to use your delightful phrase, a Daily Mail style string-em-up arse?

for you to think that getting legal advice when in a tight spot suggests guilt then yes you are.

You've certainly indicated that it suggests guilt. It does no such thing, apart from within your prejudices.

I question his motivation for phoning his lawyer, therefore I have decided on his guilt and want him taken out and hung. What an extraordinary (and completely false) conclusion to reach.

You have questioned his motivation - for calling a lawyer when he clearly needs a lawyer. It's laughable.

If you cannot see that there's no sensible reason to question someone's motivation for calling a lawyer when they're in a situation that requires a lawyer, then what is extraordinary is your thinking and nothing else.

None of us will be entitled to reach a conclusion on whether he is guilty or not unless we hear all of the evidence. That includes me and you.

absolutely true - and yet you're allowing yourself to be swayed by something which is 100% meaningless towards his guilt or not.

I have a completely open mind about this and am perfectly willing to accept, in the light of evidence if it becomes public knowledge, that I am wring to doubt his motivation for calling his lawyer.

PMSL.

You don't have an open mind. You are saying that something utterly meaningless "suggests something".

The only meaningful motivation to call a lawyer is the need of a lawyer, guilty or not.

You, on the other hand, seem already to have decided that doing so was a perfectly normal and rational action by someone who claims accidentally to have killed his girlfriend.

So please do tell me why it is only normal to call a lawyer when falling under suspicion of a crime if you're guilty. :rolleyes:

You are entitled, of course, to reach that view - but in doing so you have prejudged his actions in the absence of hearing all the evidence.

I'm prejudging nothing. :rolleyes:

I'm stating the fact that a call to a lawyer cannot ever mean anything towards someone's guilt or not of a crime.

There is absolutely no evidence which can *EVER* be presented around that call to indicate guilty or not (unless there's evidence of the actual words spoken in that call and the words contain an admission of guilt).

You say it should be judged only on the evidence; I agree wholeheartly.

Which is why I'm trying to get thru to you that nothing about that call is any evidence (aside from if the words spoken were recorded). Evidence of that call is only evidence of that call, nothing to do with guilt or not - at all.

If calling a lawyer when about to be arrested or having been arrested is indicative of guilt then just about every person who goes thru the UK justice system is guilty by default of that in your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the sum total of this is that I think it is odd that he called a lawyer so quickly that they arrived before the police. I'd like to understand why. There could be a perfectly innocent explanation.

whatever the reason why the lawyer arrived first, it says absolutely diddly squat towards his guilt or not.

It might be "odd" that his lawyer arrived first, but it does NOT "suggest something" - aside from him knowing that he was in need of a lawyer. Given that he's in need of a lawyer whether it's deliberate or a tragic accident or anything in between, it does not "suggest something".

The fact that it "suggests something" to you says more about you than it does Pistorius, guilty or not.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever the reason why the lawyer arrived first, it says absolutely diddly squat towards his guilt or not.

It might be "odd" that his lawyer arrived first, but it does NOT "suggest something" - aside from him knowing that he was in need of a lawyer. Given that he's in need of a lawyer whether it's deliberate or a tragic accident or anything in between, it does not "suggest something".

The fact that it "suggests something" to you says more about you than it does Pistorius, guilty or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um it was me who said his lawyer was there first. He may live next door for all I know, or did the shotting himself, didn't realise it would carry on for 2 pages.

He also called his Dad who got there before the police as well.

Only taking things from my perspective.

Obviously the man has a very cool head.

I'm sure we would all do different things, Neil may pop down the pub have a few beers then come back and phone the police.

Doesn't mean he is guilty but also does mean I can't find that an odd thing to do.

And boy these threads would be dull with complete rational thought.

Heard on the reports last night that he was shooting his gun in a resturant the other week.

Mad stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You couldnt be more wrong...the problem is that you read things into comments which arent actually there

oh well,I cant change that

You said "suggests something". It was clearly a reference towards his guilt, and that it to you suggests he's guilty.

I'm guessing that you've talked to a lawyer at somepoint in your life. Taking your cue, that suggests something to me, it suggests you must be a murderer.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and, as I have said ad nauseum, at no point did I say that it made him guilty, or even that it suggested guilt

so what was the "something" that it suggested to you, that thru all of these posts you've avoided being explicit about? :lol:

</me hears the whirring of cogs as abdoujaparov tries to invent something to dig himself out of the shit :lol: >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...