Oscar Pistorius

[simmo]

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).

Thanks for that. I have not watched it all and your analysis makes things a bit clearer for me about where the defence is going....as it is the more I think about the defences line, the more I disbelieve it.....I mean, you think your house is being robbed, the first thing you do (anyone would do surely) is check your girlfriend is ok, don't you?

Also, if your girlfriend was staying and you were fast asleep in bed, and was awoken by a noise in the toilet you would assume it would be your girlfriend and to confirm/deny this all you would have to do is reach across (however dark the room is) to where she should be/is sleeping and touch the bed to confirm.....surely your first reaction on being awoken by a noise coming from your toilet, wouldn't be to pump some lead into a toilet door at an unidentified person behind that door?

However, I guess we need to hear both sides of the story so let's see how the defence attempts to explain this away.

They like a break in these proceedings too, don't they!

 

[KZNSeagull]

They like a break in these proceedings too, don't they!

They certainly do. There will be another one from the 4th April to 14th April as well as it is the High Court holidays or something!

I agree with your analysis of his story. It is SO far fetched but I guess the question is whether the prosecution have done enough to persuade the judge that their version of events is good enough to convict.

 

[vegster]

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).

I was referring to the fact that he used his gun in a friends car and nearly shot a fellow diner through the foot in a restaurant, the boy's not safe !

 

[KZNSeagull]

I was referring to the fact that he used his gun in a friends car and nearly shot a fellow diner through the foot in a restaurant, the boy's not safe !

No indeed, but he does know how to handle a gun properly, but chose not to. Prosecution are using that as proof of his reckless gun behaviour.

As I said earlier in the thread, I think he is round the twist.

 

[John Bumlick]

You think he is innocent then?

I think I'll let the court decide and then respect its decision regardless of the imperfections of the system because I have no clue what his motivations were.

 

[KZNSeagull]

One of the court assessors is ill, so court adjourned until April 7th! Boo!

 

[Seagull58]

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

No they don't! We had a fairly highly publicised court case a couple of years agpo where some "celebrity" was about to go to jail and a government minister waded in with her view that he deserved it and "he'd better take some vaseline with him"! They're pretty unpleasant places.

 

[Seagull58]

No they don't! We had a fairly highly publicised court case a couple of years agpo where some "celebrity" was about to go to jail and a government minister waded in with her view that he deserved it and "he'd better take some vaseline with him"! They're pretty unpleasant places.

I should add that it probably depends who you are and what you can afford as to how you get treated. The last two Chief Police Commissioners have both been jailed for corruption and I imagine they were looked after pretty well. The last one was released from his 15 year sentence on medical parole after only 229 days. To be fair to him he has kidney failure and is on dialysis so I don't think he's faking but he's well enough to go shopping regularly in his BMW 6-series (chauffeur driven) and he says that, apart from the dialysis, he's not sick.

 

[drew]

Who would they have asked?

Fair point. Could wait until the cross examination of Pistorius or even just chuck it in at the summing up!!!

I think I'll let the court decide and then respect its decision regardless of the imperfections of the system because I have no clue what his motivations were.

Mind you don't get any splinters!!!

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I should add that it probably depends who you are and what you can afford as to how you get treated. The last two Chief Police Commissioners have both been jailed for corruption and I imagine they were looked after pretty well. The last one was released from his 15 year sentence on medical parole after only 229 days. To be fair to him he has kidney failure and is on dialysis so I don't think he's faking but he's well enough to go shopping regularly in his BMW 6-series (chauffeur driven) and he says that, apart from the dialysis, he's not sick.

I'll be starting dialysis soon, and as far as I can tell, yes, you spend a couple of hours on the machine every day (depending on hat type you're doing), and the rest of the time you're pretty much ok. In fact, I've been told I'll probably feel better once I'm dialysing as it'll be doing a job my body isn't currently. Can imagine it would be pretty bad having to do it in prison though.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think I'll let the court decide and then respect its decision regardless of the imperfections of the system because I have no clue what his motivations were.

Have you never lived with a woman?

 

[John Bumlick]

Have you never lived with a woman?

Yes and I managed to do it without shooting her in the face (with a gun, anyway). Have you?

 

[John Bumlick]

Mind you don't get any splinters!!!

Is that a fence sitting reference?

What is it with people? Why do I have to have an opinion on his guilt or innocence? I honestly don't know. He shot his partner, it's not a simple case.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes and I managed to do it without shooting her in the face (with a gun, anyway). Have you?

Yep. Fortunately I don't own a gun.


I jest, I jest, she's wonderful, love of my life, etc etc.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I jest, I jest, she's wonderful, love of my life, etc etc.

Well, I don't know about the rest of the Board, but I'm convinced that's sincere. Yes, siree; absolutely.

 

[drew]

Is that a fence sitting reference?

What is it with people? Why do I have to have an opinion on his guilt or innocence? I honestly don't know. He shot his partner, it's not a simple case.

Because, despite how crudely he put it, Footsoldier expressed an opinion that he is guilty and your response suggested otherwise!

 

[Triggaaar]

Well, I don't know about the rest of the Board, but I'm convinced that's sincere. Yes, siree; absolutely.

Thank you ma lady. I had no idea it was her as I bludgeoned her to death with a bratwurst.

 

[John Bumlick]

Because, despite how crudely he put it, Footsoldier expressed an opinion that he is guilty and your response suggested otherwise!

But it really didn't, did it? It suggested that Footsoldier is a bit of a **** for forming such a strong opinion about something when, despite what he may think, he doesn't have enough information to reach such a conclusion.

Edit: really? I can't say ****? Surely **** isn't a swear word. Oh go on, let me say **** just once. Bugger. This swear filter is a right pain in the ****.

 

[drew]

But it really didn't, did it? It suggested that Footsoldier is a bit of a **** for forming such a strong opinion about something when, despite what he may think, he doesn't have enough information to reach such a conclusion.

Edit: really? I can't say ****? Surely **** isn't a swear word. Oh go on, let me say **** just once. Bugger. This swear filter is a right pain in the ****.

I think most people will disagree with you. There has been plenty of evidence presented to enable anyone to form an opinion. It may well be that the defence will present further evidence that may make people change their mind. The undisputed facts are that he shot his girlfriend. The question is only whether you believe his story that he thought it was an intruder or if you believe the prosecution that he knew it was his girlfriend behind that locked bathroom door!!!

 

[John Bumlick]

I think most people will disagree with you.

I can honestly say that that has never bothered me (and it happens quite a lot).