Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

Gosub

Seachmall wrote: »

The legal team didn't throw any manure at the detectives.

The lead investigator drunkenly shot at a taxi carrying seven people while on duty. The charges were brought against him before this case ever started.

And here I was thinking you believed in innocent until proven guilty. When exactly was he convicted of this?

wonderfullife

Lets face it - one of the first things Pistorius legal team would do is search for reasons to discredit Detective Botha. They dig a little, find the old charges that were dropped, make a few calls to people in the DPP who owe them a favour or who they have dirt on, voila the charges reappear with majestic timing.

Nobody will ever convince me that these charges re-surfaced for any other reason at that moment in time. They could have re-surfaced weeks, months ago or from now, but slap bang in the middle of the bail hearing?

Seachmall

wonderfullife wrote: »

They were brought and dropped by the DPP in 2012 yet mysteriously re-surface days into the bail hearing and conveniently help discredit a key witness for the state.

If you are naive enough to presume it was a coincidence that the charges resurfaced, then that's fair enough.

Sometimes when you add 2 + 2 it does = 4.

I just think it's absurd that the people who whinge about it as an example of justice not being done are ignoring the fact the man is being charged with drunkenly firing into a loaded minibus while on-duty.

That seems like justice being done to me.

His was also a massive liability for the prosecution. With all this "corruption" going about maybe it was the prosecutors using it as an excuse to kick him off the case. It's not exactly a case they want to lose with the entire world watching and the continuous comparisons to the OJ trial.

one of the first things Pistorius legal team would do is search for reasons to discredit Detective Botha.

You read his testimony and heard the Judge rant on about him. Pistorius' team didn't need to discredit Botha, I'm pretty sure they'd love to have him on the stand.

his whole story is riddled with holes

It's unfortunate the prosecution couldn't find any.

Gosub wrote: »

And here I was thinking you believed in innocent until proven guilty.

I'm entitled to hold baseless opinions and argue them as if they were of any value at all too, y'know.

wonderfullife

Very important disctinction Seachmall - he is accused of drunkenly firing shots at a minibus which failed to stop.

Quote from National Police Commissioner:

"Phiyega told a hastily arranged press conference: "With the process of the bail application over, I, as the national commissioner, am appointing a new team to take the long haul process and Hilton Botha is not part of the team."

She claimed the police had been unaware of the charges against Botha until they were informed by the national prosecuting authority on Wednesday. "The matter that was being looked into, we were aware of it. He was on duty, it has been to court, it was withdrawn provisionally, we now have a decision and we will co-operate with the courts and look at the outcome and deal with it accordingly."


Asked if it was sheer coincidence that prosecutors revived the charges against Botha on the very day he was in the limelight, Phiyega told the Guardian: "I wish I had a crystal ball. I would be able to answer that. We received the feedback yesterday and I wouldn't be able to address you on the coincidence … We will look at the decision and act appropriately"

Seachmall

wonderfullife wrote: »

Very important disctinction Seachmall - he is accused of drunkenly firing shots at a minibus which failed to stop.

A minibus and a taxi are the same thing in S.A.

My second post corrected the accused.

wonderfullife

Seachmall wrote: »

I just think it's absurd that the people who whinge about it as an example of justice not being done are ignoring the fact the man is being charged with drunkenly firing into a loaded minibus while on-duty.

That seems like justice being done to me.

His was also a massive liability for the prosecution. With all this "corruption" going about maybe it was the prosecutors using it as an excuse to kick him off the case. It's not exactly a case they want to lose with the entire world watching and the continuous comparisons to the OJ trial.

It's unfortunate the prosecution couldn't find any.



I'm entitled to hold baseless opinions and argue them as if they were of any value at all too, y'know.

So you think the Prosecutors Office revived the charges to kick him off the case and totally undermine the case against Pistorius?! Why when they could just replace him easily without the charges re-surfacing?

This was a bail hearing. The implausibility, improbability and holes in his story will be addressed at trial. Everything from the phone records, to the light in the room, to the ballistics and forensics. A detailed forensic and ballistic analysis will ultimately determine if the bullets could have been fired from a height consistent with his prosthetics being off. The case will hinge on that and i'm confident it will ultimately be proved he was wearing his prosthetics.

Seachmall

wonderfullife wrote: »

So you think the Prosecutors Office revived the charges to kick him off the case and totally undermine the case against Pistorius?! Why when they could just replace him easily without the charges re-surfacing?

I think he was a clear liability to the prosecution and I think the defense could easily have discredited him on the stand.

But who, if anyone, dumped him in it I don't know.

This was a bail hearing. The implausibility, improbability and holes in his story will be addressed at trial. Everything from the phone records, to the light in the room, to the ballistics and forensics. A detailed forensic and ballistic analysis will ultimately determine if the bullets could have been fired from a height consistent with his prosthetics being off. The case will hinge on that and i'm confident it will ultimately be proved he was wearing his prosthetics.

And if they can show he is guilty may he rot in jail.

Gosub

My reading of the minibus taxi thing is that there were 7 alleged criminals making an escape in the taxi. When the driver failed to stop the detective fired at the tyres. I'm sure this is standard practice in a lot of police forces.

Now the alleged criminals are claiming that he tried to murder them, although none of them were injured. I'm sure the characters of the 7 are impeccable and none wouldn try to cause trouble for a member of the police... or would they?

I think the defence team went into damage limitation mode and it might just backfire on them. Botha was an asset to them. If only they knew this before they allegedly got the charges reinstated.

Seachmall

Gosub wrote: »

My reading of the minibus taxi thing is that there were 7 alleged criminals making an escape in the taxi. When the driver failed to stop the detective fired at the tyres. I'm sure this is standard practice in a lot of police forces.

One alleged criminal was in a taxi with six alleged non-criminals. At least that's what the Guardian alleges was reported by allegedly South African newspapers.

Or so I allege.

opinion guy

pH wrote: »

And now we have an OJ-esque legal team throwing manure at everything including the detectives

wonderfullife wrote: »

They were brought and dropped by the DPP in 2012 yet mysteriously re-surface days into the bail hearing and conveniently help discredit a key witness for the state.

If you are naive enough to presume it was a coincidence that the charges resurfaced, then that's fair enough.

Sometimes when you add 2 + 2 it does = 4.

The charges were reinstated against Botha on Feb 4th ten days before Reeva was shot - it was just that noone bothered to tell the prosecution or the defence (or I believe Botha himself).

The story was broken by a local reporter who looked the guy up. It was not the defence muckraking. (why would they in any case? - Botha helped the defence more than anything)

Botha is actually still on the case by the way - he is just not the lead investigator anymore.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21531446

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/oscar-pistorius-case-lead-detective-removed

Guardian wrote:

The National Prosecuting Authority said the charges against Botha were reinstated on 4 February, 10 days before Pistorius shot Steenkamp.
"The decision to reinstate was taken on 4 February, way before the issue of Pistorius came to light or the murder of Reeva was committed," an NPA spokesman, Medupe Simasiku, told Reuters. "It's completely unrelated to this trial."

PAULWATSON

sorry to have to repeat, Hougie was banging her. Oscar lost it.

April O Neill

His joy at hearing he got bail. Kinda weird for someone how has just lost the woman he supposedly loved.

robinph

April O Neill wrote: »

His joy at hearing he got bail. Kinda weird for someone how has just lost the woman he supposedly loved.

Nothing wrong with being happy about not spending the next year plus in an overcrowded prison waiting for your trial to happen. I think the cheers you hear are some unrelated supporters at the back of the court, and they are quickly shushed by the rest of the court room.

mondeo

If he was sent to prison while waiting for his case would he even still have his health when his case came up? They might make mince meat of him inside.

Imo this guy might do a runner coming up to his case. He is bound to be advised what life in these south african prisons is like. From what i have read it genuinely scares me at the thought of it. Even if he escapes murder he will still serve some sort of time in the inside. There is a chance he may get special treatment though.

Killer Wench

April O Neill wrote: »

His joy at hearing he got bail. Kinda weird for someone how has just lost the woman he supposedly loved.

I would be too, considering he would not have been able to take his prosthetic legs. The cell block would have been overcrowded, he would have to rely on a wheelchair (assuming they would allow it), and he would have been a lame duck waiting for the next pounce.

opinion guy

PAULWATSON wrote: »

sorry to have to repeat, Hougie was banging her. Oscar lost it.

Why ?
Why would he murder someone he is dating only 2 months, even if something like this was going on (I don't think it was - on what grounds are you casting such a slur on Reeva's character ?)
Why would he throw away his fame, fortune and riches over a 2 month old relationship ?

It just doesn't make sense

petersburg2002

It's now being reported that Reeva's family have seen photos showing she had head injuries possibly caused by the baseball bat:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283507/Horrified-family-told-Pistorius-DID-beat-Reeva-cricket-bat-shown-extensive-head-injuries.html[\url]

Stheno

petersburg2002 wrote: »

It's now being reported that Reeva's family have seen photos showing she had head injuries possibly caused by the baseball bat:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283507/Horrified-family-told-Pistorius-DID-beat-Reeva-cricket-bat-shown-extensive-head-injuries.html[\url]

That article is disturbing if true. Changes the case significantly

Seachmall

But you have to ask yourself; is it likely the prosecution would have missed severe head injuries and/or failed/chosen not to mention them during the bail trial?

Although if its true; what a scumbag.

Stheno

From the article

Last week the prosecution did not mention any details about the bat and the role they believe it played in Reeva’s death, opting not to disclose their case against Pistorius.

Seachmall

opting not to disclose their case against Pistorius.

I may be wrong, or maybe it's different in S.A., but isn't it a requirement that prosecution and defense exchange evidence to allow both sides develop their case and build defenses for the opposition's claims?

I think it's the "Discovery Process" in the U.S. and I'd have thought it's common world-wide.


Edit - That might be exclusive to civil law. I'm not sure.

petersburg2002

Seachmall wrote: »

But you have to ask yourself; is it likely the prosecution would have missed severe head injuries and/or failed/chosen not to mention them during the bail trial?

Although if its true; what a scumbag.

Probably still doing the forensic tests. They wouldn't want to look like idiots again. It would prove extremely damning if true.

Stheno

Seachmall wrote: »

I may be wrong, or maybe it's different in S.A., but isn't it a requirement that prosecution and defense exchange evidence to allow both sides develop their case and build defenses for the opposition's claims?

I think it's the "Discovery Process" in the U.S. and I'd have thought it's common world-wide.


Edit - That might be exclusive to civil law. I'm not sure.

Discovery is in relation to the actual trial, this was just a bail hearing.

petersburg2002 wrote: »

Probably still doing the forensic tests. They wouldn't want to look like idiots again. It would prove extremely damning if true.

I thought the same ref. forensics, they didn't have them complete would be my view and physical evidence suggests her skull was crushed but they hadn't time to match blood/wood evidence definitively.

Rascasse

This story has not a single SA news source. She was cremated a few days ago, so why did news of these injuries not come out sooner? This looks like BS.

7 7 12

If this stuff about the bat is true, then the prosecution have an open and shut case against him.

OP will be obviously more aware of this than anyone else on the planet and (again if true) knowing what life in a SA prison is like he's probably considering one of three choices

1) bribery -very common among legal system in poorer countries, but with the world spotlight on the case, impossible to get away with

2) fleeing the country -again too much spotlight on him to get away with this but still a possibility for anyone with enough money

3) suicide -sadly the most probable scenario in my opinion

Again all this rests on the bat incident being true, only time will tell

petersburg2002

If true, it might also explain why the prosecution were so cocksure about the premeditation involved. When many were still asking if they were being heavy handed with such a charge.

token101

7 7 12 wrote: »

If this stuff about the bat is true, then the prosecution have an open and shut case against him.

OP will be obviously more aware of this than anyone else on the planet and (again if true) knowing what life in a SA prison is like he's probably considering one of three choices

1) bribery -very common among legal system in poorer countries, but with the world spotlight on the case, impossible to get away with

2) fleeing the country -again too much spotlight on him to get away with this but still a possibility for anyone with enough money

3) suicide -sadly the most probable scenario in my opinion

Again all this rests on the bat incident being true, only time will tell

He hasn't a hope of fleeing and hasn't a hope of bribing anyone. And he's not going to top himself before he even gets to trial. He'll walk here. I reckon he's as guilty as sin from everything that's come out, but I still think he'll get away with it if there's the slightest, slightest bit of doubt, however improbable.

robinph

Carl Pistouris is also charged with culpable homicide as well.

Actually relates to a crash with a motorbike from a while ago and is due in court in March.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21563911

opinion guy

robinph wrote: »

Carl Pistouris is also charged with culpable homicide as well.

Actually relates to a crash with a motorbike from a while ago and is due in court in March.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21563911

:eek:

What next ?

According to CNN Oscars brother is due for trial as well, for Culpaple Homicide, in the death of a woman.


****e, we all posted this at nearly the same time LOL apart from Robin )



sorry .

seenitall

opinion guy wrote: »

Why ?
Why would he murder someone he is dating only 2 months, even if something like this was going on (I don't think it was - on what grounds are you casting such a slur on Reeva's character ?)
Why would he throw away his fame, fortune and riches over a 2 month old relationship ?

It just doesn't make sense

A fit of rage.

There is an amount of scumbags out there who would kill you sooner than look at you if you happen to hurt their 'pride', there are all kinds of psychos, there are bullies, there are people who are completely devoid of any sense of reality, or their competitive and entitlement characteristics have been fostered to the n-th degree for a long while to the point of not being very clear on right or wrong.

All of the above can still apply to the rich people; and sometimes even much more so than the ordinary folks.

I wouldn't be throwing a slur on Reeva's character either; but she could have just had a Happy Valentine message from an old flame, he saw it, lost the plot, and why wouldn't a scenario like her murder ensue?

It is entirely possible.

opinion guy

seenitall wrote: »

It is entirely possible.

Oh it is possible, but I think it is more likely that he is a paranoid gun-nut who got spooked and thought someone was breaking in.

I'm not convinced by the supposed stories of prior violence (neither was the magistrate incidentally)

seenitall

I know that's your opinion.

Just replying to your post where you're saying it doesn't make sense.

I think it possibly makes perfect sense, from the psychological POV.

Seachmall

Stheno wrote: »

Discovery is in relation to the actual trial, this was just a bail hearing.

But still, had they mentioned it it would almost guarantee OP wouldn't get bail. And not mentioning it doesn't benefit their case at all because they have to share evidence anyway for the trial.

And even still saying they didn't mention it so as not to disclose their case against OP to OP is a bit redundant. If he beat her with a bat he would obviously know he beat her with a bat so he would presumably know that would be brought up in the case.

And further, he could have easily come up with a different story that wouldn't be undermined by something so blatantly obvious. Why would he tell this story knowing full well it has a 0% chance of success because of how easily disprovable it is?


I'm sceptical of it anyway, sounds like another case of media reporting on hearsay.

opinion guy

Seachmall wrote: »

But still, had they mentioned it it would almost guarantee OP wouldn't get bail. And not mentioning it doesn't benefit their case at all because they have to share evidence anyway for the trial.

And even still saying they didn't mention it so as not to disclose their case against OP to OP is a bit redundant. If he beat her with a bat he would obviously know he beat her with a bat so he would presumably know that would be brought up in the case.

And further, he could have easily come up with a different story that wouldn't be undermined by something so blatantly obvious. So why would he tell this story knowing full well it has a 0% chance of success.


I'm sceptical of it anyway, sounds like another case of media reporting on hearsay.

Particularly skeptical since her Dad is on record in the day as saying:

BBC wrote:

"If it didn't happen the way he says it did he must suffer and he will suffer," her father told Beeld newspaper.
"It does not matter how much money he has and how good his legal team is, he will have to live with his conscience," Mr Steenkamp said.
"But if he speaks the truth, I can perhaps some day forgive him," he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21558901

Would the dad be saying this if the cops were showing him evidence as in the Daily Mail article ?


Also - why would the cops show a family that ? I mean what possible reason would they show a family such gruesome, traumatising pictures? Even before formal forensics/autopsy reports are back etc etc ? Not to mention likely illegal.
Its simply incredulous.

Da Shins Kelly

I think he's going to get off either way.

opinion guy

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I think he's going to get off either way.

No chance in hell he gets off. Its only a question of what he gets convicted of and what sentence he gets.

robinph

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I think he's going to get off either way.

He has admitted killing her, he's not getting away with anything.

He is disputing the prosecution claim that he intended to kill his girlfriend.

Capt'n Midnight

seenitall wrote: »

A fit of rage.

There is a tiny possibility of 'roid rage.

Considering the number of athletes who take performance enhancing substances it's not altogether beyond the bounds of possibility. But if so it's likely to be something that's not easily detectable.

7 7 12

opinion guy wrote: »

No chance in hell he gets off. Its only a question of what he gets convicted of and what sentence he gets.

If his defense team can make a good case, knowing what they do about SA law on defending your property - he may never serve a single day in prison , unlikely though

In determining whether a crime victim acted reasonably, the courts judge each case on its own merits. Certainly, an owner who is confronted by a robber is not expected to abandon his property. He is entitled to protect it, and the court will consider all the circumstances2 when deciding whether the means of defending the property were reasonable.


This right to self-protection can provide a defence to a charge of assault or even, in some cases, murder. Our law allows you to defend yourself, another person, your property or the property of another against a current or imminent unlawful attack.3 When a person pleads private defence, his claim is that the injury he caused was, in the circumstances, lawful and permissible.

http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/CrimeQ/No.8/duPlessis.htm

fishy fishy

his brother is up on charges too - did I hear this correctly? weird

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

his brother is up on charges too - did I hear this correctly? weird

Nothing weird.

Carl Pistouris is due in court next month relating to an RTA in 2010 where a motorcyclist died.

davet82

robinph wrote: »

Nothing weird.

Carl Pistouris is due in court next month relating to an RTA in 2010 where a motorcyclist died.

jesus that family just keep on giving :rolleyes:

gramar

I just looked up the timeline of events (thesouthsfrican.com) and I saw a detail that I hadn't been previously aware of:

Thursday 14 February:
1am (CAT): Police called to Oscar Pistorius’s home in Silverwoods Estate, Pretoria after domestic disturbance.

Can anyone verify that the police were called at 1am?

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

Nothing weird.

Carl Pistouris is due in court next month relating to an RTA in 2010 where a motorcyclist died.

well it certainly isn't normal.

these crowd shouldn't be allowed out. :roll eyes:

johnr1

One way or another, he's fcuked. Murder or Manslaughter, he's going to jail, and as a pretty white boy with no legs that means murder, or rape which = AIDS. Special treatment or separate accommodation won't save him.

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

well it certainly isn't normal.

these crowd shouldn't be allowed out. :roll eyes:

Even Oscar Pistorius's brother is innocent until proven guilty. I don't think guilt by association is really solid grounds for a conviction just yet.:)

gramar

johnr1 wrote: »

One way or another, he's fcuked. Murder or Manslaughter, he's going to jail, and as a pretty white boy with no legs that means murder, or rape which = AIDS. Special treatment or separate accommodation won't save him.

That was a constructive and enlightening contribution.

johnr1

gramar wrote: »

That was a constructive and enlightening contribution.

Constructive to an agenda of convicting him or aquitting him ? No, but it was more relevant than your post above. I've already contributed my opinions on that to the thread.

Whats your problem?

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

well it certainly isn't normal.

these crowd shouldn't be allowed out. :roll eyes:

Car crashes happen every day and unfortunately sometimes people die.

His brother being involved in a car crash is hardly grounds for making slurs against the whole family.