flamingsombrero Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I watched a bit of it and I thougnt the prosecution trying to claim the witness couldn't distinguish between a female and male scream was a bit weak http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gok0k3mcw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Oscar's brief absolutely schooling the Forensic witness this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 His brief in on the backfoot though with this new evidence about him not having his legs on when he smashed the door down. If can't disprove it then if Pistorius has lied about that then what else has he lied about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 His brief in on the backfoot though with this new evidence about him not having his legs on when he smashed the door down. If can't disprove it then if Pistorius has lied about that then what else has he lied about. Far more damaging to the prosecution case though was the Dr's testimony that he heard a series of bangs, a scream, and then another series of bangs - backs up Oscar's story 100%. The evidence about legs or not is questionable... will be interesting to see if Pistorius himself shows how he hit the door and whether that tallies or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 12, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted March 12, 2014 I just don't believe him. I don't believe anyone, knowing they weren't the only person in the house legitimately fires a gun through a door three times. Especially when that door is to an bathroom adjoining your bedroom which seems just about the least likely room for a thief to be in. No matter what the outcome of the case I just don't believe it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I'm with you Trent. I have never bought his version of events. Saying that I have no idea which way this is going to go, with just 1 man and 2 advisor's making the decision on such a case it really could go anywhere (feels a bit like a high profile boxing match). Who'd have thought that a shooting in your apartment in the middle of the night would generate over 100 witnesses to present evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Oh he's guilty as sin. You know as soon as you wake up whether you are alone in bed or not, and in the even of a break in, you check your girlfriend is ok before you do anything else. What you don't do is make a bee-line for the en suite and start blasting. Its more the legal process I'm interested in - how his brief gets him off. The prosecution is a shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Slightly odd the way witnesses address all their remarks to the judge when answering someone else - so they are asked a question by a bloke, and reply "My Lady...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Very good practice. Helps prevent witnesses getting wound up by barristers. Always address the bench...never the brief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 She was wearing Nike trainers when she was killed. Who gets up at 3am and laces up a pair of trainers, without turning on a light, to walk into their ensuite and go to the toilet? Perhaps they hadn't gone to bed yet? No, sorry, that doesn't fit the defence case. My mistake. He says they went to bed at 10. Evidence from the partly digested food in her stomach shows she ate at around 1.00. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 His brief in on the backfoot though with this new evidence about him not having his legs on when he smashed the door down. If can't disprove it then if Pistorius has lied about that then what else has he lied about. Far more damaging to the prosecution case though was the Dr's testimony that he heard a series of bangs, a scream, and then another series of bangs - backs up Oscar's story 100%. The evidence about legs or not is questionable... will be interesting to see if Pistorius himself shows how he hit the door and whether that tallies or not. Is it? Roux is certainly very good but that doesn't mean he didn't intentionally kill her. It was damming for the defence that his ex girlfriend said he had on two occasions woken her when he thought there was a burglar in the house. also the security guard ringing Pistorius after the shooting and he said everything was fine. There's other things like firing a gun in the restaurant and through the sunroof of a car. Ok Roux is doing his best at discrediting all the witnesses, but all these things are beginning to add up to a guilty verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 His brief in on the backfoot though with this new evidence about him not having his legs on when he smashed the door down. If can't disprove it then if Pistorius has lied about that then what else has he lied about. Far more damaging to the prosecution case though was the Dr's testimony that he heard a series of bangs, a scream, and then another series of bangs - backs up Oscar's story 100%. The evidence about legs or not is questionable... will be interesting to see if Pistorius himself shows how he hit the door and whether that tallies or not. Is it? Roux is certainly very good but that doesn't mean he didn't intentionally kill her. It was damming for the defence that his ex girlfriend said he had on two occasions woken her when he thought there was a burglar in the house. also the security guard ringing Pistorius after the shooting and he said everything was fine. There's other things like firing a gun in the restaurant and through the sunroof of a car. Ok Roux is doing his best at discrediting all the witnesses, but all these things are beginning to add up to a guilty verdict. not a chance in hell. He will be found not guilty of premeditated murder...there is evidence of enough doubt of that...but he get 10yeats for culpable homicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 His brief in on the backfoot though with this new evidence about him not having his legs on when he smashed the door down. If can't disprove it then if Pistorius has lied about that then what else has he lied about. Far more damaging to the prosecution case though was the Dr's testimony that he heard a series of bangs, a scream, and then another series of bangs - backs up Oscar's story 100%. The evidence about legs or not is questionable... will be interesting to see if Pistorius himself shows how he hit the door and whether that tallies or not. Is it? Roux is certainly very good but that doesn't mean he didn't intentionally kill her. It was damming for the defence that his ex girlfriend said he had on two occasions woken her when he thought there was a burglar in the house. also the security guard ringing Pistorius after the shooting and he said everything was fine. There's other things like firing a gun in the restaurant and through the sunroof of a car. Ok Roux is doing his best at discrediting all the witnesses, but all these things are beginning to add up to a guilty verdict. not a chance in hell. He will be found not guilty of premeditated murder...there is evidence of enough doubt of that...but he get 10yeats for culpable homicide. But I thought its premeditated murder or nothing. In South African law you can not be charged for a lesser offence if found not guilty on the other one. So he will walk free if found not guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Oh right....if that's the case he'll walk. Too much "reasonable doubt" already for a safe conviction. The prosecution and the police have ballsed this up from the start.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Oh right....if that's the case he'll walk. Too much "reasonable doubt" already for a safe conviction. ok I hope not as like everybody else i think he's guilty as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 It's the prosecutions fault. I think he's guilt. I'm almost certain he's guilty, but if I'm to send a man down for ever I want to be 100% stone clad certain and I can't be that with the way they've totally ballsed this up. I'd find him not guilty right now. I'd have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I'm in South Africa at the moment. I would say there is more coverage on uk tv than there is on local . There seems to be a general view here that he may well have done it and defence are looking for technicalities . The judge is getting a fair bit of praise for the way she is controlling things 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 this forensic evidence about the bat, are they saying that he shot through the door, then put his legs on? or that he had his legs on all the time? or that he didnt have them on? what are they actually arguing? would have thought the ballistics would have been better at showing if he was on his legs or not the defence arguing that he was bent over, and that the door was partly missing and had been tampered with doesnt make it sound that clear cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjaacckk91 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 this forensic evidence about the bat, are they saying that he shot through the door, then put his legs on? or that he had his legs on all the time? or that he didnt have them on? what are they actually arguing? would have thought the ballistics would have been better at showing if he was on his legs or not the defence arguing that he was bent over, and that the door was partly missing and had been tampered with doesnt make it sound that clear cut I think it's just a case of trying to say pistorius is lying about his story, so could also be lying about thinking she was an intruder. his story(I think) is he shot then put his legs on and broke the door with the bat. prosecution were trying to say he shot and then broke the door down without his legs on. and the door being tampered with is just ridiculous. how it can possibly still be used as evidence is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 God I hope he goes down. Doubt he will, I imagine a deal has already been done where he gets off and pays compo OJ Stylee. Hope his life is ruined though as OJ's is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts