paralympics 2012

[eFestivals]

as I have already said, a number of times, it suggests that he may have had a guilty mind.

PMSL

You are making a greater presumption towards his guilt because he called that lawyer. You've just proven that I called it right in the first place.

If someone is wrongly nicked and calls a lawyer, them calling that lawyer does not suggest a guilty mind.

Pistorius calling a lawyer is absolutely no different to that at all. It does not indicate anything about what is in his mind apart from a realisation that he's in need of a lawyer.

You had all the time to try and dig yourself out of a hole and still failed dismally.

[fred quimby]

PMSL

You are making a greater presumption towards his guilt because he called that lawyer. You've just proven that I called it right in the first place.

If someone is wrongly nicked and calls a lawyer, them calling that lawyer does not suggest a guilty mind.

Pistorius calling a lawyer is absolutely no different to that at all. It does not indicate anything about what is in his mind apart from a realisation that he's in need of a lawyer.

You had all the time to try and dig yourself out of a hole and still failed dismally.

[abdoujaparov]

PMSL

You are making a greater presumption towards his guilt because he called that lawyer. You've just proven that I called it right in the first place.

If someone is wrongly nicked and calls a lawyer, them calling that lawyer does not suggest a guilty mind.

Pistorius calling a lawyer is absolutely no different to that at all. It does not indicate anything about what is in his mind apart from a realisation that he's in need of a lawyer.

You had all the time to try and dig yourself out of a hole and still failed dismally.

[Stash]

But it still strikes me as unusual, to say the least, for someone to think to call a lawyer as one of their first responses to having killed someone. Of course, they will want to talk to a lawyer and to have one present, but it usual (as far as I am aware) for this to happen post-arrest - not as the person's first or second response to their circumstances. That doesnt mean he's guilty. On it's own, as a piece of information, it proves precisely fuck all

[abdoujaparov]

I don't know all the details of this case, but wealthy/famous people are likely to deal with this differently than you or I (not that I have a gun or would consider shooting it through a door at Mrs Stash).

[eFestivals]

On it's own, as a piece of information, it proves precisely fuck all

oh, so now it doesn't "suggest something"? PMSL.

Yeah, I got you so very wrong that you've now changed what you're saying completely.

Laughable. From your Daily Mail views to your slimy words to your retraction

[Ed209]

I listened to that bail hearing on bbc website for an hour and fucking half only for the feed to cut out right before he gave the verdict. And then cuts back to background noise.

grrrr

[eFestivals]

Not sure I ever said "suggests Something". Perhaps it's you reading far too much into my words.

You didn't.

abdoujaparov did.

As I've been pointing out, it suggests fuck all except to Daily Mail readers and their ilk.

[abdoujaparov]

oh, so now it doesn't "suggest something"? PMSL.

Yeah, I got you so very wrong that you've now changed what you're saying completely.

Laughable. From your Daily Mail views to your slimy words to your retraction

Edited February 22, 2013 by abdoujaparov

[Kowalski]

Jesus that was 2 hours of my life I'll never get back, with so much swaying from one direction to the other. It is not clear to me (yet?) what the exceptional circumstances are that have granted bail. It sounded like the judge was still treating it as premediated murder, or at least had not changed his thoughts either way.

[Kowalski]

He basically said at one point that they had failed to show exceptional circumstance... But there was a lot of legal muttering, a lot of it drowned out by the excellent work at Five Live (fecking useless) I didn't total follow so maybe the justification was in that...

[eFestivals]

It is amenable to innocent explanation

it is, but just the one innocent explanation - that a person coming under suspicion of a crime generally needs the services of a lawyer.

Everything else it suggested to you is the world of the Daily Mail.

Hey, your full time job isn't as a judge is it? It would explain a lot about who is in prison and the sentences handed out.

[abdoujaparov]

it is, but just the one innocent explanation - that a person coming under suspicion of a crime generally needs the services of a lawyer.

Everything else it suggested to you is the world of the Daily Mail.

Edited February 22, 2013 by abdoujaparov

[eFestivals]

The Daily Mail isnt noted for having an open mind. There could be an innocent explanation. There are other plausible and less innocent explanations. Only time will tell - assuming that there is a trial - which is right. I dont know, and neither do you.

there are other explanations, but not any that can have any meaningful evidence*.

(* I say that on the basis that a recording of the words spoken in the call does not exist).

He called a lawyer. That is what any not-guilty person might do and is also what any guilty person might do.

On the basis of that, there cannot be any suggestion of his guilt taken from him having made that call.

It's that simple.

To take any further suggestion from it gets you nowhere in relation to his guilt or not - but it might well get you a column in the Daily Mail.

[eFestivals]

PS - you keep trying to divert it back to another area, not re4lated to anything about what you said about him calling a lawyer "suggests something"

Which either shows your disingenuous approach to what I've tackled you on over what you've said, or just gross stupidity.

[abdoujaparov]

PS - you keep trying to divert it back to another area, not re4lated to anything about what you said about him calling a lawyer "suggests something"

Which either shows your disingenuous approach to what I've tackled you on over what you've said, or just gross stupidity.

[abdoujaparov]

there are other explanations, but not any that can have any meaningful evidence*.

(* I say that on the basis that a recording of the words spoken in the call does not exist).

He called a lawyer. That is what any not-guilty person might do and is also what any guilty person might do.

On the basis of that, there cannot be any suggestion of his guilt taken from him having made that call.

It's that simple.

To take any further suggestion from it gets you nowhere in relation to his guilt or not - but it might well get you a column in the Daily Mail.

[eFestivals]

or your impressive ability to invent the meaning behind other people's words

I don't have to invent any meaning for your "suggests something" when what you believe "suggests something" can NOT suggest anything towards his guilt (which you said it might). How many bleeding times?

A guilty person might call a lawyer.

A not-guilty person might call a lawyer.

So please tell me how calling a lawyer suggests something - anything - that is meaningful towards whether he is guilty or not?

It CANNOT suggest anything towards his guilt or not. Phoning a lawyer is what people do when they come under suspicion of a crime. It has no relationship to their guilt (or not) of that crime.

[abdoujaparov]

I don't see how you can say who he called first wouldn't play apart in that.

The judge has to make a judgment based on everything before him. 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.

[eFestivals]

It is evidence of nothing.

it's also a suggestion of nothing.

You said it "suggests something". It does not suggest anything.

And you are right, any suspicion I may have about his motive does nothing to prove his guilt. I have never said that it did. In fact, I have repeatedly said that, without hearing the evidence, any opinion you, I or anyone else might have is pure speculation. Any other view you think I may have is pure invention and fantasy on your part

we're getting somewhere with this admission that what you feel is suggests is entirely baseless to everything but your prejudices.

Which is funnily enough what in said in the first place and turned you into the pointlessly argumentative person.

[eFestivals]

I think when it comes to what is reasonable... I don't think many people would share that assumption. Its unreasonable to presume that with your girlfriend dying in your hands your first call is to a lawyer...

Dying, or already dead?

And who said it was his first call?

But even if it might have been his first call, why shouldn't it be? A lawyer gives him more protection against a wrongful accusation of a crime (if it were an accident) and the consequences from that than a call to the police does.

It can be no indication of guilt or not. It is an entirely neutral act.

To take the suggestion from that neutral act that it implies guilt is to help him up onto the scaffold.

[abdoujaparov]

I don't have to invent any meaning for your "suggests something" when what you believe "suggests something" can NOT suggest anything towards his guilt (which you said it might). How many bleeding times?

A guilty person might call a lawyer.

A not-guilty person might call a lawyer.

So please tell me how calling a lawyer suggests something - anything - that is meaningful towards whether he is guilty or not?

It CANNOT suggest anything towards his guilt or not. Phoning a lawyer is what people do when they come under suspicion of a crime. It has no relationship to their guilt (or not) of that crime.

[abdoujaparov]

Which is funnily enough what in said in the first place and turned you into the pointlessly argumentative person.

[eFestivals]

The most interesting point is not who he called first... but in what order calls where made and then to who....

His first call might of been after neighbours called for an ambulance. All to come I would imagine.

But who he called is an important matter when tied in with other factors. Not by itself though.

But I don't think anyone said it was an indicator alone. Quite the opposite but Neil won't listen beyond the dogma / agenda as well we know

If the first call wasn't for an ambulance that might raise suspicions, but even then, perhaps not. Death by shooting can be pretty terminal; perhaps her brains were hanging out of her head. It wouldn't take a genius to know that there was no coming back from that.

After she's dead or an ambulance was on its way, the order of calls after that matter not a jot. If it was the UK there'd be no need to call the police, they'd be on their way from the call for an ambulance and maybe that's how it works in SA too so there might have been no call to the police at all.

Accident or deliberate, he'd know he was in deep shit. Who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters The person who can best help dig you out the shit - a lawyer.

While calling a lawyer might not be the first choice of you or I, it's exceedingly likely (given who he is, his sponsorship deals, etc) that he works closely with a lawyer all the time, and so it would elevate that possibility I'd say. But even if it's not like that, a lawyer can give someone in his situation (guilty or not) more assistance than any other individual.

People do the strangest things in odd situations. (True story) is the person who's mother died who took a chicken out the oven as the first reaction to hearing that news to be under suspicion of her murder?

[abdoujaparov]

we're getting somewhere with this admission that what you feel is suggests is entirely baseless to everything but your prejudices.