Oscar Pistorius

[symyjym]

With no attempt to circumnavigate the sweary filter....

You are a ****ing ****. A complete ****tard. I sincerely hope you ****ing drown in a huge vat of liquid shit. **** **** bollocks piss ****.

Bollocks and piss are obviously okay then in terms of the swear filter. What about crap, *******, wanker, ****, ********, **** then?

Surprised b****** & w***** got through the swear filter so I had to filter these words myself.

 

[fat old seagull]

His defence team are reported to be earning R100,000 a day. He has put that house up for sale to pay the legal bills - don't think I would like to live there somehow.

Well, I wouldn't want to use the toilet until they've filled the holes in the door

 

[Triggaaar]

Well, I wouldn't want to use the toilet until they've filled the holes in the door

And put the door back in the apartment.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Sounds a lot but translates to about £5.5k a day.

Indeed, but to put it into context, selling that house may pay for about 25 days in court. But I have no sympathy for him - he should not have shot her!

 

[pastafarian]

He has put that house up for sale to pay the legal bills - don't think I would like to live there somehow.

saying that,my limited experience of SA is of highly fortified houses,(mostly Joburg)his house does not seem to be the case,i presume its a safe place to live,and somewhat desirable.

 

[KZNSeagull]

saying that,my limited experience of SA is of highly fortified houses,(mostly Joburg)his house does not seem to be the case,i presume its a safe place to live,and somewhat desirable.

Desirable because it is in a very secure estate. They are still building more units there, I believe, so not sure how desirable it would be considering you could buy a new one there and not a second hand one with "history"

 

[Seagull58]

Indeed, but it does not happen so often that the first thing you think of when you hear a noise in your house is that there is a burglar, surely?

Unlikely that he would immediately think it was a burglar. He may have made a few enemies though seeing as he appears to be a rather unpleasant character.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Well that was a bit of an anti-climax - prosecution have finished questioning the cell phone police expert and no more revelations from text messages. Only thing of interest was that Oscar was on the internet for 5 minutes at 1:48 on morning of 14th. After the incident, there were various internet connections and voice calls until about 4am from Oscar's phone.

Let's see what the defence have to say.

 

[Footsoldier]

Well that was a bit of an anti-climax - prosecution have finished questioning the cell phone police expert and no more revelations from text messages. Only thing of interest was that Oscar was on the internet for 5 minutes at 1:48 on morning of 14th. After the incident, there were various internet connections and voice calls until about 4am from Oscar's phone.

Let's see what the defence have to say.

What are the prisons like in SA? Do they have TV's, Play stations, GYM's, Phones in Cells.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Defence just emphasised affectionate messages between the two in days running up to incident.

Then crime stats officer called. 6 other crimes reported at the estate between Jan 2011 and April 2013. 1 burglary. Defence said that his client had been a victim of crime on numerous occasions, but crime stats officer said no trace - it is possible that that his name or id number had not been input into system correctly. Prosecution said that if Oscar gave dates and places they could search the database for them - Crime stats officer confirmed that they could. So essentially, if Oscar had been a victim of "numerous crimes", he did not report them.

 

[symyjym]

Defence just emphasised affectionate messages between the two in days running up to incident.

Then crime stats officer called. 6 other crimes reported at the estate between Jan 2011 and April 2013. 1 burglary. Defence said that his client had been a victim of crime on numerous occasions, but crime stats officer said no trace - it is possible that that his name or id number had not been input into system correctly. Prosecution said that if Oscar gave dates and places they could search the database for them - Crime stats officer confirmed that they could. So essentially, if Oscar had been a victim of "numerous crimes", he did not report them.

Cheers for the summary KZN

 

[drew]

Any reason why the prosecution didn't ask why she felt she had to lock the door just to go to the loo in the middle of the night when it is only the two of them in the house?

 

[simmo]

Defence just emphasised affectionate messages between the two in days running up to incident.

Then crime stats officer called. 6 other crimes reported at the estate between Jan 2011 and April 2013. 1 burglary. Defence said that his client had been a victim of crime on numerous occasions, but crime stats officer said no trace - it is possible that that his name or id number had not been input into system correctly. Prosecution said that if Oscar gave dates and places they could search the database for them - Crime stats officer confirmed that they could. So essentially, if Oscar had been a victim of "numerous crimes", he did not report them.

Hi KZN,

Have caught a few bits and bobs of the trail and the defence has yet to come, but from what I have seen so far in the UK it seems to me that the defence have not done much to contradict what the prosecution state happened. Obviously there is much more coverage in SA. Whats the feeling closer to the action in the press etc. As the decision is by a judge only are the press allowed to offer their opinions etc. or is it the same as in the UK i.e no press opinion in case the jury is prejudiced?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Any reason why the prosecution didn't ask why she felt she had to lock the door just to go to the loo in the middle of the night when it is only the two of them in the house?

Who would they have asked?

Hi KZN,

Have caught a few bits and bobs of the trail and the defence has yet to come, but from what I have seen so far in the UK it seems to me that the defence have not done much to contradict what the prosecution state happened. Obviously there is much more coverage in SA. Whats the feeling closer to the action in the press etc. As the decision is by a judge only are the press allowed to offer their opinions etc. or is it the same as in the UK i.e no press opinion in case the jury is prejudiced?

The defence have not really found anything spectacular that contradicts the prosecution case so far. There is the odd fact where someone has said something and someone else says something else, but nothing startling. The prosecution has several small facts that add up to a whole and the defence have nothing to go on other than the word of their client. The defence have been very picky in trying to get witnesses to change their story or even show that the witness' memory is unreliable, but then that is their job.

It is interesting that the prosecution have found several people who said they heard pretty much the same thing ie bangs, screaming, more bangs. The defence are going to claim that Oscar sounds like a girl when he screams, apparently and are going to try to prove that the second lots of bangs were the cricket bat on the door.

No, the press cannot speculate as they would not want to prejudice the case. The proceedings are being televised under strict guidance, so reporters can report what is said, not what they think was said.

Essentially, it will come down to how Oscar gets on in the dock and how convincing he is, if he stops blubbing and puking that is. The prosecution have done a good job with what they have - today they have refuted that Oscar has been a victim of numerous crimes, and shown that he lives in a safe estate, so why he "lives in fear" is a matter of opinion, not fact. They have also shown that their relationship was not all sweetness and light, and that he knows how to handle guns properly.

But we will only really know how good the prosecution has been once the defence starts I guess. Rumour is that this should start later this week. It is pretty interesting to watch and gives a good idea of how these things work - only on TV trials is there one startling fact that tips the balance either way. It is a case of whether the smaller items of info will add up to enough to convict him.

There was one amusing bit today when the defence wanted the CCTV of them shopping (shown on Sky News) admitted as proof of a loving relationship. The prosecution objected and said that they could admit videos of Oscar shooting watermelons if the court liked!

 

[simmo]

Who would they have asked?



The defence have not really found anything spectacular that contradicts the prosecution case so far. There is the odd fact where someone has said something and someone else says something else, but nothing startling. The prosecution has several small facts that add up to a whole and the defence have nothing to go on other than the word of their client. The defence have been very picky in trying to get witnesses to change their story or even show that the witness' memory is unreliable, but then that is their job.

It is interesting that the prosecution have found several people who said they heard pretty much the same thing ie bangs, screaming, more bangs. The defence are going to claim that Oscar sounds like a girl when he screams, apparently and are going to try to prove that the second lots of bangs were the cricket bat on the door.

No, the press cannot speculate as they would not want to prejudice the case. The proceedings are being televised under strict guidance, so reporters can report what is said, not what they think was said.

Essentially, it will come down to how Oscar gets on in the dock and how convincing he is, if he stops blubbing and puking that is. The prosecution have done a good job with what they have - today they have refuted that Oscar has been a victim of numerous crimes, and shown that he lives in a safe estate, so why he "lives in fear" is a matter of opinion, not fact. They have also shown that their relationship was not all sweetness and light, and that he knows how to handle guns properly.

But we will only really know how good the prosecution has been once the defence starts I guess. Rumour is that this should start later this week. It is pretty interesting to watch and gives a good idea of how these things work - only on TV trials is there one startling fact that tips the balance either way. It is a case of whether the smaller items of info will add up to enough to convict him.

There was one amusing bit today when the defence wanted the CCTV of them shopping (shown on Sky News) admitted as proof of a loving relationship. The prosecution objected and said that they could admit videos of Oscar shooting watermelons if the court liked!

Yeah I have heard that, but in the heat of the moment memories of extremely disturbing and rapid events I am sure different people can have slightly different recollections.

The defence seem to be picking holes in minutae to me (I mean he spent ages saying the wifes (Mrs Krupp?) recollection of the incident was exactly the same as her husbands...but if that is what happened shouldn't it be? and if it differed he would pick up on that too) and definitely not blowing the prosecutions hypothesis of the water.

I agree re: Oscar in the dock. I think how the prosecution cross examine him is going to be interesting to say the least

 

[KZNSeagull]

Yeah I have heard that, but in the heat of the moment memories of extremely disturbing and rapid events I am sure different people can have slightly different recollections.

The defence seem to be picking holes in minutae to me (I mean he spent ages saying the wifes (Mrs Krupp?) recollection of the incident was exactly the same as her husbands...but if that is what happened shouldn't it be? and if it differed he would pick up on that too) and definitely not blowing the prosecutions hypothesis of the water.

I agree re: Oscar in the dock. I think how the prosecution cross examine him is going to be interesting to say the least

Yes indeed re cross-examination - I will definitely watch that!

Yes it was Mrs Stipp's testimony he was trying very hard to pick holes in, but nothing that was really important that I could see. They were also trying to claim that the witnesses all sat in a room at the court room and agreed on what to say. Barry Roux is now banging on about a mark on the door....

 

[vegster]

....and that he knows how to handle guns properly

I fear this may be a bit hit and miss, he has shown he is a bit risky around guns and in fact, the biggest danger to Oscar in his nice compound would have been Oscar !

 

[simmo]

Yes indeed re cross-examination - I will definitely watch that!

Yes it was Mrs Stipp's testimony he was trying very hard to pick holes in, but nothing that was really important that I could see. They were also trying to claim that the witnesses all sat in a room at the court room and agreed on what to say. Barry Roux is now banging on about a mark on the door....

I mean for example in respect of the defence, where is Roux going with this? It could be argued that OP still put either 1,2 3 or 4 number of bullets (does it matter) into Reeva during an argument, then 10 seconds later regreted it and started bashing down the locked door with a cricket bat. That's still murder, well it is in the UK.

 

[symyjym]

The best thing Oscar can say when he takes the stand is "I had no intention to kill her but I am a obviously a psychopath and she made me do it."

 

[KZNSeagull]

I mean for example in respect of the defence, where is Roux going with this? It could be argued that OP still put either 1,2 3 or 4 number of bullets (does it matter) into Reeva during an argument, then 10 seconds later regreted it and started bashing down the locked door with a cricket bat. That's still murder, well it is in the UK.

With regards to cross-examination of state witnesses, he just has to try and pick holes to try to discredit the reliability of the witness. The fact that he shot Reeva and then broke down the door is not being contested. It is his assertion that he did not know it was her in the loo when he shot that the state are trying to refute, hence the order of bangs and screams, and who screamed when, is very important - the state reckon he shot, Reeva screamed and he carried on shooting, at least that is what I take from this. If the defence can show that this is not the case and that it was Oscar that screamed and not Reeva, then that fits more with his version of events.

As for handling the gun Vegster, he knew the correct procedures for handling weapons in order to get his gun licence. The fact that he knew this but did not follow those procedures has been shown by the state, which goes against him and partially refutes the "living in fear" aspect of the defence. He says his first and immediate reaction was that an intruder was in the house because he has been a victim of crime "on numerous occasions", but the state has shown that there is no record of crimes against him and that he lives on a safe estate.

Anyway, the prosecution have finished. Court adjourned until Friday as the defence can now approach any state witnesses that did not testify to see if they can be used for the defence (there are +- 80 of them apparently).