Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz
You can come up with a motive for literally anything if you think hard enough.
e.g. the motive for Oski refusing to acknowledge he has made false statements ITT is because he wants to think he's more intelligent than he is, as he believes he's failed in his attempt to become a respectable lawyer
I think we will continue laughing at you as you don't realize you are being trolled.
It is unbelievable that you don't get these basic points:
1. It is futile to argue whether S.A. did or did not murder T.H. until at least we have a resolution on the trial. If there is indeed a new trial, everything from the vacated proceeding is a nullity.
2. Expert opinions are called "opinions" for a reason - they are opinions. They can only be made from the facts of the case. The matters the expert may consider in forming said opinion depend on that particular proceeding. In this case, it may be that different "facts" are before the experts if this case is re-tried. So, relying on these opinions is not really helpful.
3. I have stated from day one what I believe, why I believe it, the source for my belief and that specifically I recognize the futility of deciding the ultimate question of whether SA "did it." Yet, for some reason, you continue to argue this latter point to me and expect me to magically change my opinion that this issue cannot be decided at this point. I also explained, quite clearly, that I reserve my opinion on that issue until I find it ripe for me to look into it in earnest. As of now, it is not ripe and I have explained why.
So, why do you continue to be an idiot trying to argue apples and oranges with me? No matter what you argue you are not going to convince me and probably 95% of the other posters because they are not concerned with your "apple" at this point. And you still don't get it.