₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
If you knew it, you would know what things are oral evidence.

You lack knowledge and so adamant against learning.

Maynman:
You lack knowledge and so adamant against learning.

The words there "Generally" already tells you that that definition is not wholesome, (my problem with the Half-truths and half-lies and confusion taught by Legallers and not by Lawyers.)

And what is the wholeness?
https://www.srdlawnotes.com › mea...
Meaning and Definitions of Evidence - SRD Law Notes

"According to Phipson, Evidence means THE TESTIMONY WHETHER ORAL,[b] documentary, or a real [b]WHICH MAY BE legally LAWFULLY RECEIVED, in order to prove or disprove some facts in dispute" para 3.

The case of Akintola vs. Solano. Sweet Supreme Court Told us The Truth, saying,

"What is evidence? Simply put, it is THE MEANS BY WHICH ANY MATTER (whether God O or cow or death) of fact, THE
TRUTH (MY SWEET BELOVED TRUTH ) OF WHICH IS SUBMITTED TO INVESTIGATION, may be established (proved) or disproved"

Dtruthspeaker:
The words there "Generally" already tells you that that definition is not wholesome, (my problem with the Half-truths and half-lies and confusion taught by Legallers and not by Lawyers.)

And what is the wholeness?
https://www.srdlawnotes.com › mea...
Meaning and Definitions of Evidence - SRD Law Notes

"According to Phipson, Evidence means THE TESTIMONY WHETHER ORAL,[b] documentary, or a real [b]WHICH MAY BE legally LAWFULLY RECEIVED, in order to prove or disprove some facts in dispute" para 3.

[/b]The case of Akintola vs. Solano. Sweet Supreme Court Told us The Truth, saying,[b]

"What is evidence? Simply put, it is THE MEANS BY WHICH ANY MATTER (whether God O or cow or death) of fact, THE
TRUTH (MY SWEET BELOVED TRUTH ) OF WHICH IS SUBMITTED TO INVESTIGATION, may be established (proved) or disproved"

The akintola case was done in a court? Lol
So it needs to be submitted for investigation to establish if it’s true or not, and not just accepted as an evidence without investigation?

Maynman:
So it needs to be submitted for investigation to establish if it’s true or not, and not just accepted without investigation?

Nope: it is submitted, so that he who is interested in it, can examine it, to see if it is True, then act on it.

Dtruthspeaker:
Nope: it is submitted, so that he who is interested in it, can examine it, to see if it is True, then act on it.

Okay.

Dtruthspeaker:
So the thing called gene can speak up. We can put it in court and say "gene tell us, is your name gene and why are you gene and how many of you genes and what can you tell us about your connection with the deceased? And the gene will answer us? Ehn

The gene doesn't have to speak up towards proving anything.



Why do you usually come up with unnecessary comparisons?

HellVictorinho4:
The gene doesn't have to speak up towards proving anything.

Why do you usually come up with unnecessary comparisons?

No comparison, just raising up an apparent problem based on his reliance on genes and showing him that the testimony of witnesses is almost indispensable and unavoidable in every matter

Dtruthspeaker:
No comparison, just raising up an apparent problem based on his reliance on genes and showing him that the testimony of witnesses is almost indispensable and unavoidable in every matter

Almost doesn't kill a bird

HellVictorinho4:
Almost doesn't kill a bird

But it saves the bird from death.

Dtruthspeaker:
But it saves the bird from death.

It was meant to kill the bird.

HellVictorinho4:
It was meant to kill the bird.

I meant it to save the bird.

Dtruthspeaker:
I meant it to save the bird.

You meant amiss