Current Events Tidbits Et Al

[will robie]

I’m curious what these ‘hard evidences’ are. Maybe you can enlighten us?

 

Ang FYI verbal, sworn confession IS slam dunk evidence. I’m not sure where you get the idea that says otherwise.

There is "Google". Use it. Haha! So if Kerwin Espinosa confessed he is superman, you'll believe him? Slam dunk evidence kamo ang sworn confession. Haha!

Edited March 14, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

 

Sorry, but the burden of proof to show these hard evidences falls on you, not me or google.

 

As for espinosa, as I said... it was a sworn statement under oath. In an official investigation. So that is, as you say, a slam dunk move. Saying otherwise either shows your close-mindedness... or ignorance.

 

 

There is "Google". Use it. Haha! So if Kerwin Espinosa confessed he is superman, you'll believe him? Slam dunk evidence kamo ang sworn confession. Haha!

[will robie]

A sworn statement is different from a verbal statement. You qouted my post and tried to contradict it so you have to convincingly contradict what I posted and not the other way around.

[tk421]

No, I've said so before that it was a sworn statement (confession or kung ano man) or have you forgotten? It was conducted in a government hearing wherein one is required to swear that he is telling the truth.

 

Eto pa ang jeopardy for you: kung sinasabi mong hindi totoo ang kanyang confession, eh paano na yun kaso ni de Lima eh sabi ni Espinosa sya daw ang nagbigay ng '8M through Robbie Dayan'. And the DOJ is using this statement as one of the "evidences" against de Lima.

 

So is Espinosa a drug trafficker or not?

[will robie]

De Lima’s case has hard evidence. So if Espinosa confessed he is Batman, will you believe him? Yes or no.

[will robie]

I never said that Espinosa is not a drug pusher. Understand my post.

[tk421]

I never said that Espinosa is not a drug pusher. Understand my post.

 

You were impyling it. Let's not muddle the issue here with inconsequential things like if he's true to his words or not.

 

Now: is Espinosa a drug trafficker or not? I'm already asking this question directly to you, hoping you can give an direct answer, also.

 

 

De Lima’s case has hard evidence. So if Espinosa confessed he is Batman, will you believe him? Yes or no.

 

Please define hard evidence muna, then we'll take it from there.

Edited March 15, 2018 by tk421

[will robie]

 

You were impyling it. Let's not muddle the issue here with inconsequential things like if he's true to his words or not.

That is your opinion but if you understood what I said, you can't convict on mere hearsay alone. You need hard evidence. Are you scared of answering a simple question?

[will robie]

 

 

Now: is Espinosa a drug trafficker or not? I'm already asking this question directly to you, hoping you can give an direct answer, also.

 

Answer my question first.

Please define hard evidence muna, then we'll take it from there.

Haha! You're arguing with me and you ask me to define "hard evidence". Learn what is "hard evidence" then get back to me.

[darksoulriver]

si "suspended" lawyer trixie angeles ba mini mean mo?

 

 

ano kinalaman nun sa issue? as far as i know she is still an attorney...

[jopoc]

yung naiinis sa pagbasura ng DOJ sa kaso ni bigtime pusher/druglord eh maige po munang intindihin...

 

nsa DOJ pa yung case at nadismiss due to poor evidence daw... isipin nsa DOJ pa yung case at wala sa Local Court

 

kung nsa local court na yung case at dahil poor evidence baka madismiss kaagad so laya na si druglord... hanapin nyo yung video ng isang Abogada para magets ninyo...

 

do not listen to the "damage control" palusot on this.

 

if the DOJ really wanted to file, on a mere basis of probable cause, they can do now even with the so-called "weak evidence"

 

on the case is in court, which drags for years and even decades, they can still strengthen their case and add more evidence.

[jopoc]

 

ano kinalaman nun sa issue? as far as i know she is still an attorney...

 

 

suspended nga lang. LOL

 

 

 

De Lima’s case has hard evidence. So if Espinosa confessed he is Batman, will you believe him? Yes or no.

 

 

hard evidence like drugs? may nakuha ba kahit isang gramo ng drugs kay de lima?

in a drugs case, the "hard evidence" is drugs, the corpus delicti.

[tk421]

I dont have time to answer childish questions.

 

Im asking you definition because it seems you have your own unique interpretation of it. I doubt you even know what hard evidence is supposed to be.

 

So try to answer the more relevant question: is he a drug trafficker or not?

 

Answer my question first.

 

Haha! You're arguing with me and you ask me to define "hard evidence". Learn what is "hard evidence" then get back to me.

Edited March 16, 2018 by tk421

[will robie]

I dont have time to answer childish questions.

Im asking you definition because it seems you have your own unique interpretation of it. I doubt you even know what hard evidence is supposed to be.

So try to answer the more relevant question: is he a drug trafficker or not?

It is not a childish question. I asked that to know if you are gonna believe hearsay. I will answer yours if you answer mine. Again, learn what is hard evidence and revert to me when you already have an idea of what it is. Edited March 16, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

Trying to avoid a legitimate question only raises suspicion that you don't know the answer.

 

Sino ang nagsabing hearsay yun? Confession na nga eh. Na sworn statement.

 

Drug trafficker ba si Espinosa or not? Simple question. Yes or no lang.

 

It is not a childish question. I asked that to know if you are gonna believe hearsay. I will answer yours if you answer mine. Again, learn what is hard evidence and revert to me when you already have an idea of what it is.