₦airaland Forum

Android17:
You are making a more convincing argument than most but I can play the opposition for a second. Kyari cannot be tried in US for a crime committed by a non-american not committed in the US and which does not directly impact americans. Next, the fact that we know why he arrested Chibuzo does not mean we know how he did it. What I mean is, if he actually used something he had on Chibuzo as reason for arresting him, it is immaterial that he was solicited by hush to do it. The Nigerian judiciary and police service commission can extend punitive measures to him, but it hardly plays any role in the US. Kyari has probably burnt his chances of ever becoming an IGP in future but if he was in the know concerning the scam, Hush would not have needed to explain why he wanted Chibuzo nailed. And if per adventure Hush explained the intricacies of the deal (which would then make Kyari complicit and an assessory to the crime) the FBI will need to provide evidence of this - which they did not do and do not even claim to have.

I thought Kyari is being accused of being an accomplice to Hushpupi’s alleged crimes against US-based businesses?

Blessing Okagbare and Grace Nwokocha are both through to the Women’s 100m semifinals, after clocking 11.05s and 11.00s, respectively, in their heats.

Nwokocha’s 11s run is her new PB

PDPGuy:
Blessing Okagbare and Grace Nwokocha are both through to the Women’s 100m semifinals, after clocking 11.05s and 11.00s, respectively, in their heats.

Nwokocha’s 11s run is her new PB

They both did well. After the bad news earlier in the day this is a succor. They would need to improve on that time so as to make the finals and possibly a medal. The race would be tighter than usual this year. In addition to the favs - Elaine Thompson, Asher smith and Fraser- Pryce. Leahna Daniels and that ivorian Ta lou have shown they aren't there just to make up the nos. I feel sorry for Sha carri that was disqualified

PDPGuy:
I thought Kyari is being accused of being an accomplice to Hushpupi’s alleged crimes against US-based businesses?

I wonder o.

One doesn’t need a law degree to know that for the court document to show “ United States of America vs ....” it means the scam was commited either against an American or on American soil .

Even the court document shows he’s being tried by the LA office of FBI which means the crime happened within that jurisdiction...... but u see , some people will just say anything just to keep an argument going .

The funny thing is that these are the same set of people that will open mouth waaaaa and tell u that u are incapable of making logical deductions

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?

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

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.

BlueRayDick:
I wonder o.

One doesn’t need a law degree to know that for the court document to show “ United States of America vs ....” it means the scam was commited either against an American or on American soil .

Even the court document shows he’s being tried by the LA office of FBI which means the crime happened within that jurisdiction...... but u see , some people will just say anything just to keep an argument going .

The funny thing is that these are the same set of people that will open mouth waaaaa and tell u that u are incapable of making logical deductions

Haha.

Actually, it’s the US Attorney’s office that is prosecuting the case. Anyway, what many don’t know is that even if an individual commits a crime against a US person or entity, while being out of the US, the FBI still has jurisdiction to go after that suspected criminal.
Therefore, even as Abba Kyari was chilling at Sheraton hotel in Abuja, while assisting Hushpupi in his fraudulent crimes, Kyari is rightly being declared wanted by the FBI.

Moreover, a statute passed by Congress in the mid 1980s, gives the FBI the jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed against US citizens/entities outside US soil. So, if a fraudster defrauds a US citizen while that US citizen was on vacation in Accra, the FBI would investigate the matter, and possibly refer the case to a US Attorney for prosecution

Roland17:
I love the fact that you are making a case for logic, I honestly do love it. However, you must be careful in how you analyze logic. Logic in it self does not exist independently. Logic is a product of many factors and sometimes it takes a process before a fact is established and presented as logical.

The evidence is not conclusive but it is admissible and that is why the judge signed his warrant of arrest. Why is it admissible in court? After evaluating the evidence, the judge uses deductive reasoning to determine there is a probable cause linking Abbas to Kyari in terms of the crimes committed.

The Onus is now on the prosecutors to use the evidence available to make an argument that can convince the judge that Kyari is an accomplice. Bare in mind that the prosecutors do not necessarily have to tell the world all the affidavit (evidences) that they are going to use. Do you notice sometimes lawyers are left in shock when lawyers from the opposing side present an evidence that shocks everyone? THE FBI EXPECT KYARI TO DENY! They are prepared for that.

The whole thing I mentioned about deductive reasoning is entirely hinged on the outcome of the case... That is the judgement.

Ok... Let's go to Psychology101... Deductive reasoning can only be true if the premise is true. If the premise is yet to be established to be true beyond all doubt, then deductive reasoning inferred from such premise becomes a fallacy. Fallacy is when an argument is hinged on a wrong premise.

Now in a court room, prior to the judges decision, all deductive reasoning are fallacious until the Judge establishes that all evidence/premise have been proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. Only then can deductive reasoning become accurate. Now the judge will convict a defendant based on the premise which is true.

Back to Kyari's case, the evidence currently provided by the FBI can never be enough to convict Kyari. Essentially, the judge can never practice deductive reasoning based on that inconclusive premise... Hope you get my point

afrodoc2:
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.

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 .

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

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

I don dey wait ur post

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

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

sir. You don craze finish

afrodoc2:
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.

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

This happened in a Finland's supermarket

Eden Hazard has risked the wrath of new Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti by returning to training "out of shape".

pamcode:
They both did well. After the bad news earlier in the day this is a succor. They would need to improve on that time so as to make the finals and possibly a medal. The race would be tighter than usual this year. In addition to the favs - Elaine Thompson, Asher smith and Fraser- Pryce. Leahna Daniels and that ivorian Ta lou have shown they aren't there just to make up the nos. I feel sorry for Sha carri that was disqualified

They’ll definitely improve their times in the semis

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.

Amoto94:
Eden Hazard has risked the wrath of new Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti by returning to training "out of shape".

But on a serious note, shey football Don tire hazard ni? Why is he doing this on a steady?

Even Ronaldo and Messi that have attained the status of GOATS don't turn up at training after a break "out of shape"

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

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

Vvd lead others follow, who be the second guy sef

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.

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

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

If Bellotti's 15 year old injury is responsible for his dip in form, who is VVD to pick form in 2 months?

Airmark abi?

PDPGuy:
Haha.

Actually, it’s the US Attorney’s office that is prosecuting the case. Anyway, what many don’t know is that even if an individual commits a crime against a US person or entity, while being out of the US, the FBI still has jurisdiction to go after that suspected criminal.
Therefore, even as Abba Kyari was chilling at Sheraton hotel in Abuja, while assisting Hushpupi in his fraudulent crimes, Kyari is rightly being declared wanted by the FBI.

Moreover, a statute passed by Congress in the mid 1980s, gives the FBI the jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed against US citizens/entities outside US soil. So, if a fraudster defrauds a US citizen while that US citizen was on vacation in Accra, the FBI would investigate the matter, and possibly refer the case to a US Attorney for prosecution

That is to say abba kyari is fvcked in his own fuckery

Amoto94:
Eden Hazard has risked the wrath of new Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti by returning to training "out of shape".

There's hardly any season they don't bring out this news and it's likely false just like the previous one.

afrodoc2:
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.

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

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

afrodoc2:
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

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?

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

afrodoc2:
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

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

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.

Havertz10:
you really don't know anything about the world we live in

Go and read up on NSA capabilities

NSA is just an information gathering and Data processing Agency. Stop watching too much 24 and Blacklist my guy

Erling Haaland 'is not a mission impossible' for Chelsea this summer, but he is 'a tough target'. He is still the main summer goal for Chelsea.

A new striker will certainly arrive this window.

- @angelomangiante

afrodoc2:
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 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