Shillzz Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 In fairness, this is only the bail hearing, and will only serve to highlight the flaws in the prosecutor's case, which will be ironed out for the actual trial. I still expect him to go down for murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 20, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2013 "We're in terrible trouble" says junior prosecution official leaving court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) The defence are destroying the police officers statement taking him to the cleaners I think this could be deja vu OJ simpson mark 2It could. Or he could, actually, be telling the truth. In which case he should go down for murdering a burgler. There is no case for self defence when you have the intruder trapped and locked in a bathroom. Edited February 20, 2013 by LondonLax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pongotastic Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 They didn't even take steps to establish whether the gun belonged to Pistorius, which it didn't. Jesus wept - South African police, take a bow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 They didn't even take steps to establish whether the gun belonged to Pistorius, which it didn't. Jesus wept - South African police, take a bow. Who 'owned' the gun then? Didn't he keep it 'under his bed'. In which case, I don't think 'ownership' of the gun is hugely relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 FFS is Faulkner running the SA police force Talk about a piss up in a brewery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 As others have said, this can't be OJ Simpson II as there is no doubt he killed her, it just going to be a case of what the circumstances were and how long he goes to prison for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I just don't get the line of thought that goes to 'shoot the intruder in the bathroom' instead of 'check if it isn't my girlfriend first'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 christ id hate to be up against a jury with some of you lot. The speed of condemnation by snippets of info is insane. Feel like 12 Angry Men should be mandatory viewing for trials like this. I have no idea how guilty he is, maybe he is but the way narratives here are cemented is ridiculous. Pre empting any potential "soft" sentence by assuming he d "get away with it"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 christ id hate to be up against a jury with some of you lot. The speed of condemnation by snippets of info is insane. Feel like 12 Angry Men should be mandatory viewing for trials like this. I have no idea how guilty he is, maybe he is but the way narratives here are cemented is ridiculous. Pre empting any potential "soft" sentence by assuming he d "get away with it"... But the difference is we know he shot a person to death in his bathroom, he has admitted he did it. It doesn't matter who he thought it was he should be doing some prison time. If it can be proven he has been lying then he will be doing a lot of prison time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I just don't get the line of thought that goes to 'shoot the intruder in the bathroom' instead of 'check if it isn't my girlfriend first'. Well exactly. None of his defence makes any real 'common sense'. It just isn't what someone would do, of sane or sound mind. The problem is, ther may be perhaps say a 1% chance it IS what happened. So the prosecution have to make the murder charge be beyone reasonable doubt, and for that they're going to have to come up with actual facts, bring up some previous, get witnesses and balistic experts etc. They have to show his account to be full of holes, which to the causal oberver, it looks to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaForever1970 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 CI will come out with a nonsensical one liner with nothing to back it up whatsoever. Like:'Its obvious that she was the one who shot him'Look up 'sweeping statement' in the thesaurus and there is actually a picture of CI, no word of a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 intruder in the house, wake up, first thing any person would do is check with the person next to them if they heard it, if they werent there, assume intruder is person that was next to them gone for a dump. Initial thought isnt to reach for a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) didn't we have a thread on VT not so long ago where there was lots of Macho posting about how posters would batter anyone that broke into their house and offered a perceived threat to them or their family , I think some even claimed to sleep with a cricket bat or whatever near their bed for such events , it just so happens due to the nature of where he lives , Pistorius sleep with a gun next to his bed rather than a cricket bat ( or both in his case it would seem !!) and possibly a reflex type action similar to that posted by a great deal of the VT masses in the previous thread has kicked in ? maybe he should have done as everybody has since said and checked for his girlfriend first but nobody really knows how they will act in a real life situation , to try and second guess from behind a keyboard is a tad difficult isn't it ? Edited February 20, 2013 by tonyh29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Wait til his "previous" comes out at the full trial. That should nail the bastard. No way will the prosecution show all their cards at a bail hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaForever1970 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Wait til his "previous" comes out at the full trial. That should nail the bastard. No way will the prosecution show all their cards at a bail hearing.I hope your never on a jury CI, you'll read something in the Daily Mail before going into court and have your mind made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 20, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2013 maybe he should have done as everybody has since said and checked for his girlfriend first but nobody really knows how they will act in a real life situation , to try and second guess from behind a keyboard is a tad difficult isn't it ? This is the point I was trying to make a few pages back when someone suggested that Pistorious would surely have found some cover and waited for the intruder to emerge before shooting him. It sounds logical from where we're sat, but in the heat of the moment, if you genuinely thought your life might be in danger, you probably wouldn't act rationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Wait til his "previous" comes out at the full trial. That should nail the bastard. No way will the prosecution show all their cards at a bail hearing. I don't know the SA legal system at all - but assuming its similar to the UK - "bad character" can only be used in specific circumstances. Its pretty difficult to get a bench to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013   Wait til his "previous" comes out at the full trial. That should nail the bastard. No way will the prosecution show all their cards at a bail hearing. I don't know the SA legal system at all - but assuming its similar to the UK - "bad character" can only be used in specific circumstances. Its pretty difficult to get a bench to accept it. EDIT - Also 2009 assault charges were dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 christ id hate to be up against a jury with some of you lot. The speed of condemnation by snippets of info is insane. Feel like 12 Angry Men should be mandatory viewing for trials like this. I have no idea how guilty he is, maybe he is but the way narratives here are cemented is ridiculous. Pre empting any potential "soft" sentence by assuming he d "get away with it"... Speaking of juries, I quite like this little glimpse into the thinking of the jury in the Vicky Pryce trial today: Pryce jury also ask if they can reach a verdict for a reason not presented in court &for which there are no facts or evidence. Judge: no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts