Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:31 pm
Prosecution seem to be making a right fucking pigs ear of it.
The Gooner's Online Message Board
https://forum.onlinegooner.com/
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.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.
Okay, Petrocelli - put your knickers back on.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.
Where's Roly Poly when you need himDB10GOONER wrote:Okay, Petrocelli - put your knickers back on.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.
I think the prosecution have plenty of ammunition.northbank123 wrote: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.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.
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.
goonersid wrote:Where's Roly Poly when you need himDB10GOONER wrote:Okay, Petrocelli - put your knickers back on.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.