₦airaland Forum

Oduduru disqualified.

The bad luck wey Naija pack go dis Olympics na follow come.

TheLequte:
They scored another one?

I tuned to Brazil vs Egypt immediately the 4th goal went in.

I started watching athletics immediately the 3rd goal went in.

God no go shame us o.

Jodera:
No be still Bailly miss the header again?

His teammate messed up the initial header and sent it straight up.

Bailly now tried to overpower the Spanish striker and failed.


Bailly don kill Ivory Coast o!

Odunharry:
Baily Sabi do some kind yeye mistake ehn.

Na so we see am.

TheLequte:
You no see Bailly

You no see your friend?

pamcode:
Now that Okagbare has been disqualified who remain to draft in like this.

We run 3 x 133.33m

Amad not looking sharp. Another one that might need a run of games probably on loan.

Nigeria for no go this Olympics sef.

Roland17:
Baba, it is sooo annoying and frustrating.

Sometimes some people think I carry US matter for head to much because I be citizen or I live here and I tell them anyone can become a citizen as long as you meet the criteria but the reason I am a grateful and passionate American is because this country helped me achieve a dream Nigeria would have destroyed!

I listened to L. Balogun and I can see the frustration. Ordinary to disburse free Samsung phones wen IOC give to Athletes na wahala. Them corner the phones! The careers of these athletes involved in this situation will remain on hold because of the failures of some greedy and self serving administrators. If I tell you say the thing no dey pain me, I Dey lie.

The suffering is just too much and many have now normalized it.

Nigerians are living in bondage but most don’t know it.
They think they are just suffering but there is a difference.

SyIvalord:
I am certain this guy makes these sort of comments just to get on people’s nerves

Only people who lack self control or maturity will allow it get on their nerves.

GloryIsaac:
Exact reaction

Mengi at 18yrs 8 months goes on loan to Derby in the 2nd division.

Fish at 18yrs 6 months goes on loan to a non-league side in the 5th division.

Tells you all you need to know about how each player is rated by the club hierarchy.

KingAlabi:
National league

5th division. Non-League football.

What kind of challenge is that?

They didn’t see Championship, or League One, or League Two?

KingAlabi:
Stockport doc

It seems they are mad at Old Trafford. Do you know what division Stockport is in?

Uniquisite:
I wonder how Spain play with Xabi, Xavi, Iniesta and Busquet featuring at same time. Don't blame me, i no watch the World Cup

Busquet, Xabi, Xavi in midfield, Iniesta as a wide attacker.

OVA200:
Thank you doc.

Where can one find a nephrologist? I mean like general hospital or special hospital or teaching hospitals.

Yeah you would definitely find in a teaching hospital as well as some general hospitals and private hospitals.

BlueRayDick:

I no fit lie you na.

Spy360:
How much is appendicitis surgery in Nigeria? Abeg nor vex I want check something.

Bruv I left Nigeria a decade ago. I don’t even know the price of condom there.

OVA200:
They diagnose
1. MILD ASCITES
2. ACUTEGLOMERULONEPHRITIS(AGN).

They ran some test before diagnosing him those.

I don't know the treatment he was given but i think they should be treating what they diagnose now.

He is bed ridden now so seeing Nephrologist might be difficult.

Yeah but there are many different causes of the AGN.

What is important is supportive treatment to prevent complications of AGN like Chronic Renal Failure, Hypertensive Complications, Nephrotic Syndrome etc
Secondly investigate and treat the cause of the AGN.

If he is so sick from it then you need to ask them to refer him to a Nephrologist or find one yourself and take him there.
The same way you carried him to the present hospital you get him to see the nephrologist.

OVA200:
PLEASE DOCTORS IN THE HOUSE I NEED YOUR HELP

An uncle of mine was seriously sick early this week and when we took him to hospital they ran a test and begin treatment but after a week he seems better and he was discharged but after 3 days he was sick again and we took him back to the hospital and was treated again and was discharged after 10 days and for the third he was sick again and we took him to a different hospital this time and he is been there for over days now but his condition is still the same if not worse.

Please I need you doctor input
The result below

What is their diagnosis. What other specific investigations were carried out? What treatment is he receiving?

Your uncle should be seen by a Nephrologist ASAP in order to prevent long term complications.

nihilistjnr:
It's like you dont understand English.

Na whine the guy dey whine you.

PDPGuy:
The website proves my point that the Grand jury ain’t part of the trial court. In practice, the grand jury and trial jury operate separately

Oga shey you dey whine us ni?

The man said "The courts" and you now added TRIAL court.

BlueRayDick:
Guy honestly I doubt this one is a juju priest, I can bet this one has more Marijuana than juju. See herbs now......He must be a very HIGH priest

Ojo meje ni baba lo ninu igbo ko to ri ewe ja

swiz123:
What evidence is circumstantial enough? If I go into someone's room and the person ends up dead. I was arrested and I claimed the person was dead already before I got there.... Won't they carryout autopsy to know the cause of death and probably the time he died?

Actually, what is reasonable or unreasonable doubt is at the discretion of the judge.. sometimes they can be faulty and that's why we have appellate courts

I agree with No 2.

But with No 1, going into someone's room and the guy being found dead later is different from you chasing a man into a room and the guy being found dead.

swiz123:
The original narrative is open to a lawyer making a defensive arguement to flaw the narrative. His arguement now is, Andrew's blood is not on the cutlass as his client didn't cut Andrew with it. The case can easily become that of attempted murder because is it BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that John had the intention of killing Andrew.

If your narrative is that John cut Andrew with the cutlass, then Andrew's blood must be seen on the cutlass.

Let's not lose focus of the initial argument.... Before Kyari's foolish response, he had a strong arguement to flaw that evidence

The narrative is that John killed Andrew.

What weapon he used is not important. There are a good number of murder convictions without victim's body, murder weapon, finger print evidence, DNA evidence, or confession.

All that is needed is circumstantial evidence.

What that unidentified blood would do is just make the police start looking for more unknown victims of John The Butcher.

swiz123:
I believe you are a doctor. You did a DNA and realized that the only blood on the cutlass belongs to one person other than the victim, doesn't it mean that the victim didn't die by that particular weapon the assailant was seen with?

Does it give probable course to his own narrative? What if the DNA identifies who own the blood and the person wasn't recorded dead anywhere?

You are adding more stories to the original narrative.

Let's stick to the facts.

John chased Andrew into an alley trying to kill him. No one else was seen. Andrew was found dead shortly afterward in the alley.

That is enough to convict John. When i have time i will show you examples of people being convicted for murder with even more flimsy circumstantial evidence.


P.S Whoever that blood belonged to will just claim that he was trying to save Andrew when John cut him and he ran away. Nobody saw him chasing or threatening Andrew but people saw John chasing and threatening Andrew.

John would still be the main suspect, and that evidence is enough to convict him

swiz123:
If John throws away the weapon, he will be convicted. Any argument he presents is unreasonable.

If he comes out with a cutlass laced in blood and claims that Andrew's enemy who is also his enemy killed Andrew before him and he had to fight him off an escape hence the blood on his cutlass.

He cannot be convicted if the blood doesn't match that of Andrew

He can. That the blood does not belong to Andrew does not mean he didn't kill Andrew. The prosecution will just spin it that he killed 2 people, Andrew and another unknown person.

He was seen chasing Andrew into an alley wanting to kill him. Andrew was shortly after found dead. Nobody else was seen there.

Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict people beyond reasonable doubt........it might not be enough to convict beyond unreasonable doubt though

BlueRayDick:
It's the confidence for me

These people have absolutely no idea of criminal law. They probably don't know there's something called circumstantial evidence . What Raumdeuter described up there is circumstantial evidence; someone seen leaving a crime scene with a cutlass dripping blood is circumstantial evidence and is enough to have that person convicted of murder .

Exactly. They have been convicting people of murder with circumstantial evidence for centuries. DNA and fingerprints is just jara.

And when they say reasonable doubt they mean REASONABLE, not unreasonable explanations. If they wanted to accept unreasonable explanations they would have said beyond unreasonable doubt.

swiz123:
Wrong!!... beyond reasonable doubt is a point where the defendant's lawyer cannot make a reasonable defence to counter an evidence. What if the defendant says another person who john has offended got to John before him.... The burden to prove that no one got to John before the defendant is entirely on the prosecutor to prove. This is according to what Dayo said. I can't argue for another murder case without having the facts

Check what Dayo said.

1) John was seen chasing Andrew into a dark alley.

2) John was seen coming out a few minutes later with blood on his cutlass

3) Andrew's body was found afterwards in the alley.

Does it sound REASONABLE to YOU if John's lawyer says it was another person who was not seen by anybody who killed Andrew.

The truth is even if John throws away the cutlass and it is never found to check for DNA and/or fingerprints he will most likely be convicted.

A lawyer coming to claim that somehow an invisible person killed Andrew when everybody saw John chasing him into an alley is UNREASONABLE.

swiz123:
That alone will not convict John. The will apply inductive reasoning to expand possibilities in order to remove any reasonable doubt. This is where they run a DNA on the blood on the cutlass and finger prints on the knob of the cutlass...

If it turns out to match John's and nobody else's, then the evidence has been proven beyond reasonable doubt which is the level of proof required to convict anyone of a CRIME.

If however another fingerprint appears on the knob of the cutlass, it is left on the prosecutor, not the defendant to make an arguement supported with evidences that will remove reasonable doubt. If they fail to clears doubts about the new finger print, the defendant walks...... nothing concern Judge, cos the burden to prove the case is entirely on the prosecutor.... Na law101 I just dey clear una

Why are you misinforming people with confidence na? O wrong nau!

What you just described is proof WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. However the law courts in the Western World especially those based on English law do not work like that.

They require only proof beyond REASONABLE doubt to convict even in murder cases not proof with absolute certainty. There are several cases of murder conviction without body or even DNA evidence.

raumdeuter:
SO they dont claim you are lying or that Jovetic hit him with juju

https://j.gifs.com/Eqq96g.gif

Gawd have mercy! Were they playing on ice?

raumdeuter:
Many convictions are based on this actually
Most offenders never admit guilt, in many cases there are no eye witnesses

E.g this scenario
John threatened to kill Andrew, John was seen chasing Andrew with a cutlass into a dark alley, 10mins later John was seen with a cutlass soaked in blood. Later Andrew was found dead in the alley matcheted to death

Do you think deductive reasoning won't convict John of the murder even though no one saw him committing the murder?

Even if Andrew's dead body was never found John can still be convicted of the murder. There is a reason they say reasonable doubt.

Anybody doubting the claim that Obioma Kyari was part of the criminal deal is being unreasonable.