Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
User avatar
goonersid
Posts: 8838
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:40 am
Location: DERRY CITY

Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by goonersid »

Prosecution seem to be making a right fucking pigs ear of it.

skizz_b
Posts: 1857
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:26 pm
Location: LDN

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by skizz_b »

Not without prosthetics 8)

But I think he's now got a good chance of getting off, all the evidence suggests he did it but like you said they are making a mockery of an open and shut case!

User avatar
SPUDMASHER
Posts: 10739
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:07 am
Location: London Euston
Contact:

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by SPUDMASHER »

He's never denied doing it..............he's just said it was an accident.

The prosecution are trying to convict on mostly circumstantial evidence. Everything they have does have a legitimate reason for having occured.

Personally I think he was wreckless. I don't think he intended it.

I imagine he'll get off.

User avatar
DB10GOONER
Posts: 58940
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland.
Contact:

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by DB10GOONER »

Well, initially I thought he didn't have a leg toe stand on. But now I'm thinking he will indeed walk. And if he's convicted? What's toe stop him legging it?

:barmaid:


>sorry<

User avatar
goonersid
Posts: 8838
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:40 am
Location: DERRY CITY

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by goonersid »

I'm stumped

User avatar
northbank123
Posts: 12436
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:05 am
Location: Newcastle

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by northbank123 »

Not a chance he's getting convicted the way this is going. Barely credible witnesses giving dubious accounts of what they heard from 100m+ away in the middle of the night and trying to run down his personality may make for brilliant headlines but any defence lawyer worth his salt will drive a bus through it, which is exactly what Roux has done so far.

The prosecution's case rests on showing that Pistorius is an arrogant, aggressive and rash character, that he was probably on his stumps and that they'd had an argument that night. All of the evidence showing that will at best be open to interpretation and in any event is only circumstantial and merely suggestive. The complete lack of witnesses to the event and the lack of dispute over the firing of the gun mean the chances of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt are negligible for a competent investigation process.

The police have made an absolute pig's ear of it, to be fair to the prosecutor he can only work with what he's given. If it wasn't so serious the police handling of evidence would be hilarious but given the circumstances and the high-profile nature of the incident they obviously had to prosecute for murder regardless of how unrealistic it was.

The media will probably do the same as they did for the Redknapp trial - repeat the odd line from prosecution counsel and present it as though it's an incontrovertibly damning piece of evidence. Then follow it up by easing off with the intensity and dramatic coverage in the second half of the trial when the defence put their case forward and when the verdict is delivered these journos will turn into seasoned court experts and smugly declare that justice has been reached or the case was inevitably going that way.

Absolutely no way he's going to get convicted for it. Not saying that means he's innocent, but like the Redknapp case the prosecution argument is tenuously weak.

User avatar
northbank123
Posts: 12436
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:05 am
Location: Newcastle

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by northbank123 »

Also the apparent bias of the state's witnesses is a bit alarming. We are talking about minuscule details and timings of a few seconds in the middle of the night (and for some from a great distance), their refusal to accept the accuracy of their testimony may not be guaranteed even in the face of strong contrary evidence at times is unreasonable. The police forensic expert also seems desperate to aid the prosecution however he can.

Might hold sway with an uneducated jury but in front of a judge with the world's eyes on the case? Nope.

User avatar
Perryashburtongroves
Posts: 13403
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: At the start of a glorious era.

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by Perryashburtongroves »

I haven't seen much of the trial so far but from the bits I have caught, he keeps being sick and to liven things , a man hits a door with a cricket bat.

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2412
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by GranadaJoe »

I'm not up on South African law but, Pistorious appears to have admitted intentionally shooting into the bathroom to, presumably kill or maim a 'burglar'. That he killed someone else wouldn't remove the possibilty of a murder conviction.

The defence attorney is doing all he can to try to discredit the witnesses, but they have all said they heard a woman sreamimg and shots being fired. It could be argued that some of their recollections are not completely accurate, but the message remians the same. If they heard shouts from 150m away it can be assumed Pistorius would have heard them. (Don't be misled by commentators suggesting this is a long way. Stick a knife in a goalie and see if the other goalie hears him scream).

It is unlikey that the defence can call many witnesses to provide evidence that Oscar's version is correct so the defence has to try and put reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge. It'd be more likely to work with a jury (a la StevieG acquital), but will be harder to do with a judge.

User avatar
northbank123
Posts: 12436
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:05 am
Location: Newcastle

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by northbank123 »

GranadaJoe wrote:I'm not up on South African law but, Pistorious appears to have admitted intentionally shooting into the bathroom to, presumably kill or maim a 'burglar'. That he killed someone else wouldn't remove the possibilty of a murder conviction.

The defence attorney is doing all he can to try to discredit the witnesses, but they have all said they heard a woman sreamimg and shots being fired. It could be argued that some of their recollections are not completely accurate, but the message remians the same. If they heard shouts from 150m away it can be assumed Pistorius would have heard them. (Don't be misled by commentators suggesting this is a long way. Stick a knife in a goalie and see if the other goalie hears him scream).

It is unlikey that the defence can call many witnesses to provide evidence that Oscar's version is correct so the defence has to try and put reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge. It'd be more likely to work with a jury (a la StevieG acquital), but will be harder to do with a judge.
The witnesses regarding gunshots etc were all contradictory. The husband and wife were both fairly adamant that what they said was accurate even though it differed in some fine but key details. Then the other resident (doctor I think) came in and contradicted them on some fundamental points, and by reasonably acknowledging that his testimony may not be 100% accurate realistically eroded the credibility of the other witnesses on this point. Like I said it may seem like a big deal when the press print headlines like "Witness heard 'bloodcurling' Reeva scream" but it's never going to be decisive here.

It's important to remember that it was by no means unusual or viewed there as unreasonable for him to have a gun for 'protection' (whereas here the mere ownership of a gun in this country would go some way to inferring premeditation).

Everybody knows it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt - to view this another way the judge has to be convinced that Pistorius' explanation could not reasonably have occurred before even contemplating a guilty verdict. Given that they have no obvious proof of intent (like a confession, CCTV, witnesses, any form of hard evidence suggesting he had threatened this in the past or was planning it) the prosecution have to try and build a story based on circumstantial evidence that may indicate that he intended to kill her.

The best the prosecution can hope for seems to be showing that he probably didn't have his blades on and they probably had an argument that night (as well as his hothead personality). Combine this with the police blundering and the strong possibility of tampered evidence and witness statements and I cannot see the judge convicting him.

User avatar
StuartL
Posts: 7878
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 8:22 pm
Location: It’s a new dawn, a new day a new life, for me and I’m feeling good

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by StuartL »

Why would you attack a locked bathroom door with a cricket bat if you think there is a burglar inside it ?

Wouldn't you call the police, while letting the burglar know you have a gun ?

Wouldn't he recognise his wife's screams (and presumably shouts of stop, what are you doing etc )

He did it,(which hasn't been denied) intended to do it, but if he gets off will be a right fuck up.

User avatar
DB10GOONER
Posts: 58940
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland.
Contact:

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by DB10GOONER »

northbank123 wrote:Not a chance he's getting convicted the way this is going. Barely credible witnesses giving dubious accounts of what they heard from 100m+ away in the middle of the night and trying to run down his personality may make for brilliant headlines but any defence lawyer worth his salt will drive a bus through it, which is exactly what Roux has done so far.

The prosecution's case rests on showing that Pistorius is an arrogant, aggressive and rash character, that he was probably on his stumps and that they'd had an argument that night. All of the evidence showing that will at best be open to interpretation and in any event is only circumstantial and merely suggestive. The complete lack of witnesses to the event and the lack of dispute over the firing of the gun mean the chances of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt are negligible for a competent investigation process.

The police have made an absolute pig's ear of it, to be fair to the prosecutor he can only work with what he's given. If it wasn't so serious the police handling of evidence would be hilarious but given the circumstances and the high-profile nature of the incident they obviously had to prosecute for murder regardless of how unrealistic it was.

The media will probably do the same as they did for the Redknapp trial - repeat the odd line from prosecution counsel and present it as though it's an incontrovertibly damning piece of evidence. Then follow it up by easing off with the intensity and dramatic coverage in the second half of the trial when the defence put their case forward and when the verdict is delivered these journos will turn into seasoned court experts and smugly declare that justice has been reached or the case was inevitably going that way.

Absolutely no way he's going to get convicted for it. Not saying that means he's innocent, but like the Redknapp case the prosecution argument is tenuously weak.
Okay, Petrocelli - put your knickers back on. :roll:

:lol: :wink:

User avatar
goonersid
Posts: 8838
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:40 am
Location: DERRY CITY

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by goonersid »

DB10GOONER wrote:
northbank123 wrote:Not a chance he's getting convicted the way this is going. Barely credible witnesses giving dubious accounts of what they heard from 100m+ away in the middle of the night and trying to run down his personality may make for brilliant headlines but any defence lawyer worth his salt will drive a bus through it, which is exactly what Roux has done so far.

The prosecution's case rests on showing that Pistorius is an arrogant, aggressive and rash character, that he was probably on his stumps and that they'd had an argument that night. All of the evidence showing that will at best be open to interpretation and in any event is only circumstantial and merely suggestive. The complete lack of witnesses to the event and the lack of dispute over the firing of the gun mean the chances of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt are negligible for a competent investigation process.

The police have made an absolute pig's ear of it, to be fair to the prosecutor he can only work with what he's given. If it wasn't so serious the police handling of evidence would be hilarious but given the circumstances and the high-profile nature of the incident they obviously had to prosecute for murder regardless of how unrealistic it was.

The media will probably do the same as they did for the Redknapp trial - repeat the odd line from prosecution counsel and present it as though it's an incontrovertibly damning piece of evidence. Then follow it up by easing off with the intensity and dramatic coverage in the second half of the trial when the defence put their case forward and when the verdict is delivered these journos will turn into seasoned court experts and smugly declare that justice has been reached or the case was inevitably going that way.

Absolutely no way he's going to get convicted for it. Not saying that means he's innocent, but like the Redknapp case the prosecution argument is tenuously weak.
Okay, Petrocelli - put your knickers back on. :roll:

:lol: :wink:
Where's Roly Poly when you need him :wink:

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2412
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by GranadaJoe »

northbank123 wrote:
GranadaJoe wrote:I'm not up on South African law but, Pistorious appears to have admitted intentionally shooting into the bathroom to, presumably kill or maim a 'burglar'. That he killed someone else wouldn't remove the possibilty of a murder conviction.

The defence attorney is doing all he can to try to discredit the witnesses, but they have all said they heard a woman sreamimg and shots being fired. It could be argued that some of their recollections are not completely accurate, but the message remians the same. If they heard shouts from 150m away it can be assumed Pistorius would have heard them. (Don't be misled by commentators suggesting this is a long way. Stick a knife in a goalie and see if the other goalie hears him scream).

It is unlikey that the defence can call many witnesses to provide evidence that Oscar's version is correct so the defence has to try and put reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge. It'd be more likely to work with a jury (a la StevieG acquital), but will be harder to do with a judge.
The witnesses regarding gunshots etc were all contradictory. The husband and wife were both fairly adamant that what they said was accurate even though it differed in some fine but key details. Then the other resident (doctor I think) came in and contradicted them on some fundamental points, and by reasonably acknowledging that his testimony may not be 100% accurate realistically eroded the credibility of the other witnesses on this point. Like I said it may seem like a big deal when the press print headlines like "Witness heard 'bloodcurling' Reeva scream" but it's never going to be decisive here.

It's important to remember that it was by no means unusual or viewed there as unreasonable for him to have a gun for 'protection' (whereas here the mere ownership of a gun in this country would go some way to inferring premeditation).

Everybody knows it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt - to view this another way the judge has to be convinced that Pistorius' explanation could not reasonably have occurred before even contemplating a guilty verdict. Given that they have no obvious proof of intent (like a confession, CCTV, witnesses, any form of hard evidence suggesting he had threatened this in the past or was planning it) the prosecution have to try and build a story based on circumstantial evidence that may indicate that he intended to kill her.

The best the prosecution can hope for seems to be showing that he probably didn't have his blades on and they probably had an argument that night (as well as his hothead personality). Combine this with the police blundering and the strong possibility of tampered evidence and witness statements and I cannot see the judge convicting him.
I think the prosecution have plenty of ammunition.

Were the high pitched screams that all the relevant witnesses said they heard really made by Oscar (he'd have to have some vocal range)?
Given that he couldn't have talked to, heard from, or seen the 'burglar', who had locked 'himself' in the bathroom and made no sounds, let alone threats, was Oscar's fear for his imminent safety reasonable?
Why, at no point did he check on, or wake his girlfriend, when most people would consider it an automatic thing to do and something that a witness has said Oscar previously did with her?
He has a history of losing his temper and firing guns.
To fire 4 shots in a panic and hit your girlfriend through a closed door with all of them suggests amazing luck or maybe the noises she was making give him an idea where she was.
Unless he killed her outright with the first bullet her screams would have alerted him to his mistake.

Up to now the prosecution has put up its witnesses, which the defence will obviously try to discredit. It will be interesting to see the prosecution tearing into Oscar when he takes the stand.

User avatar
DB10GOONER
Posts: 58940
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland.
Contact:

Re: Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

Post by DB10GOONER »

goonersid wrote:
DB10GOONER wrote:
northbank123 wrote:Not a chance he's getting convicted the way this is going. Barely credible witnesses giving dubious accounts of what they heard from 100m+ away in the middle of the night and trying to run down his personality may make for brilliant headlines but any defence lawyer worth his salt will drive a bus through it, which is exactly what Roux has done so far.

The prosecution's case rests on showing that Pistorius is an arrogant, aggressive and rash character, that he was probably on his stumps and that they'd had an argument that night. All of the evidence showing that will at best be open to interpretation and in any event is only circumstantial and merely suggestive. The complete lack of witnesses to the event and the lack of dispute over the firing of the gun mean the chances of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt are negligible for a competent investigation process.

The police have made an absolute pig's ear of it, to be fair to the prosecutor he can only work with what he's given. If it wasn't so serious the police handling of evidence would be hilarious but given the circumstances and the high-profile nature of the incident they obviously had to prosecute for murder regardless of how unrealistic it was.

The media will probably do the same as they did for the Redknapp trial - repeat the odd line from prosecution counsel and present it as though it's an incontrovertibly damning piece of evidence. Then follow it up by easing off with the intensity and dramatic coverage in the second half of the trial when the defence put their case forward and when the verdict is delivered these journos will turn into seasoned court experts and smugly declare that justice has been reached or the case was inevitably going that way.

Absolutely no way he's going to get convicted for it. Not saying that means he's innocent, but like the Redknapp case the prosecution argument is tenuously weak.
Okay, Petrocelli - put your knickers back on. :roll:

:lol: :wink:
Where's Roly Poly when you need him :wink:
:lol: :lol:

Post Reply