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

robinph

Defence: Oscar screams like a girl.

Capt'n Midnight

robinph wrote: »

The states case is not a good one when their opening statement is that their evidence is entirely circumstantial.

Just what other sort of evidence would you expect when the main witness is dead ?

pH

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just what other sort of evidence would you expect when the main witness is dead ?

it seems bizarre when the guys has been caught red handed shooting his girlfriend with his own gun and admitting doing it to describe the evidence as "circumstantial"

This exactly like O.J., an innocent man being set up by the state.

pH

Deleted User wrote: »

This exactly like O.J., an innocent man being set up by the state.

To be fair they are both very popular sporting hero type men, and they only killed women (mainly!).

tommyboy2222

robinph wrote: »

Defence: Oscar screams like a girl.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gok0k3mcw

Seems legit.

B.A._Baracus

Was reading in The Sun the other day that 'Blade Runner' has a new girlfriend now. Seriously, what type of woman would date a man up for murdering his partner?!

Theres liking the whole 'bad boy' thing then there is just being mental :pac:

Hande hoche!

His cousins are big lads.

robinph

pH wrote: »

it seems bizarre when the guys has been caught red handed shooting his girlfriend with his own gun and admitting doing it to describe the evidence as "circumstantial"

That bit nobody is disputing.

What the prosecution need to prove is the charge of murder, and unless they have something very significant hidden away still there is nothing to suggest pre meditated murder. The prosecution have said though that they don't have anything else with the opening statement of only having circumstantial evidence, you need more than that to make murder stick, and they should have just gone for a completely undisputed manslaughter, or whatever the South African equivalent charge is.

fryup

i reckon she wanted to end the relationship and he couldn't take it and snapped

thats it in a nutshell

robinph

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just what other sort of evidence would you expect when the main witness is dead ?

Well something to suggest their pre meditated murder claims, like a reason for him to want her dead, or evidence of a fight from someone who was actually in reliable earshot of events, or other injuries on the body, or phone messages suggesting all was not well, or anything really.

There is no evidence suggested that might exist that is more than a few neighbours from a long way away who maybe heard some shouting or screams, but they are not really sure. And a bit of shouting being heard doesn't make any holes in the defence version of events.

robinph

fryup wrote: »

i reckon she wanted to end the relationship and he couldn't take it and snapped

thats it in a nutshell

Now if they bring out some friends to back up the story of all not being well with the relationship then they may have something for the prosecution. Not seen any talk of the friends who have done media interviews saying anything along those lines though.

snowbabe

Great programme on last night,it more or less showed the angle of shots at the door were from a height.He claims he didnt have his legs on so he is lieing.

Penny Dreadful

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Was reading in The Sun the other day that 'Blade Runner' has a new girlfriend now. Seriously, what type of woman would date a man up for murdering his partner?!

Theres liking the whole 'bad boy' thing then there is just being mental :pac:

Nicky Pelly still goes to visit Joe O'Reilly in Portlaoise prison. :eek:

snubbleste

Did Nostradamus predict this?

robinph

snowbabe wrote: »

Great programme on last night,it more or less showed the angle of shots at the door were from a height.He claims he didnt have his legs on so he is lieing.

I've not heard of any official source yet stating what the angle of the bullet holes were, just various programs saying that if this angle then legs on if that angle then legs off.

That is the decisive bit of evidence that the whole case rests on, but we don't yet know what the angles were.

pH

robinph wrote: »

Well something to suggest their pre meditated murder claims, like a reason for him to want her dead, or evidence of a fight from someone who was actually in reliable earshot of events, or other injuries on the body, or phone messages suggesting all was not well, or anything really.

There is no evidence suggested that might exist that is more than a few neighbours from a long way away who maybe heard some shouting or screams, but they are not really sure. And a bit of shouting being heard doesn't make any holes in the defence version of events.

I've no idea where this nonsense came from, the idea that if you haven't planned to kill someone for weeks then it somehow isn't "premeditated" and therefore hardly worthy of a slap on the wrist.

If I pick up a gun during an argument and shoot you that's murder, doesn't matter how if I'd been thinking about it that morning or just decided to kill you there and then. Putting 3 bullets into someone shows an intent to kill - that's murder.

The fact that anyone anywhere is buying the story of a girlfriend getting up in the middle of the night. locking herself in the dark in a toilet and then proceeding to bang around to awaken her sleeping boyfriend who then proceeds to shoot her "accidentally" through the door, is shocking, but says a lot about how society views important "heroic" men and what it thinks of the women who might displease them.

That is the decisive bit of evidence that the whole case rests on, but we don't yet know what the angles were.

So if he was clever enough to have held the gun slightly lower when he did the shooting that's good enough for you? His whole story is nonsense, and to suggest that exactly where the gun was when a man murders his girlfriend somehow decides a case is bizarre.

robinph

pH wrote: »

If I pick up a gun during an argument and shoot you that's murder

Agreed.

pH wrote: »

doesn't matter how if I'd been thinking about it that morning or just decided to kill you there and then.

Agreed.

pH wrote: »

Putting 3 bullets into someone shows an intent to kill

Agreed.

pH wrote: »

that's murder.

Don't agree.

His version is that he intended to kill or seriously incapacitate the person behind the door, but he did not intend to kill Reeva.

That is the difference. He's not disputing that he killed her, he is disputing that he intended to kill her.
He did intend to shoot the person behind the door, but mistaken identity does not make it murder. His version is that he was in fear of his life.

He'd not be arguing the case over the fact that he shot and intended to kill a person that he believed to be behind the door. He is disputing the claim that he intended to kill Reeva.
There isn't anything to suggest that he intended to kill her, and the best evidence that the prosecution have is if the bullet holes don't match with his version of events. But the bullet holes only becomes such good evidence for the prosecution because he gave the statement in the bail hearing.

gramar

robinph wrote: »

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Don't agree.

His version is that he intended to kill or seriously incapacitate the person behind the door, but he did not intend to kill Reeva.

That is the difference. He's not disputing that he killed her, he is disputing that he intended to kill her.
He did intend to shoot the person behind the door, but mistaken identity does not make it murder. His version is that he was in fear of his life.

He'd not be arguing the case over the fact that he shot and intended to kill a person that he believed to be behind the door. He is disputing the claim that he intended to kill Reeva.
There isn't anything to suggest that he intended to kill her, and the best evidence that the prosecution have is if the bullet holes don't match with his version of events. But the bullet holes only becomes such good evidence for the prosecution because he gave the statement in the bail hearing.

How is that not murder?

Ash.J.Williams

gramar wrote: »

How is that not murder?

it's manslaughter

robinph

gramar wrote: »

How is that not murder?

They are charging him with the murder of Reeva.
He is claiming self defence.

snowbabe

Just had a read over the whole thing,she was dressed,that's a little odd,can't get live feed of trial ,has anyone got a link?

ArmaniJeanss

pH wrote: »

I've no idea where this nonsense came from, the idea that if you haven't planned to kill someone for weeks then it somehow isn't "premeditated" and therefore hardly worthy of a slap on the wrist.

If I pick up a gun during an argument and shoot you that's murder, doesn't matter how if I'd been thinking about it that morning or just decided to kill you there and then. Putting 3 bullets into someone shows an intent to kill - that's murder.

Is that just your opinion or does it tie in with the definition of murder under South African law?

Because really your (or mine) opinion of what murder is is completely irrelevant and actually boring.

robinph

snowbabe wrote: »

Just had a read over the whole thing,she was dressed,that's a little odd,can't get live feed of trial ,has anyone got a link?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-26430238

robinph

12:49: Mr Johnson says he was told by a friend the next day that Mr Pistorius had shot his girlfriend. "I was surprised... It was difficult to relate this to what I had heard."

These prosecution witnesses don't seem to backing up the prosecution version of events.

snowbabe

Yes,they had imagined something else in their heads.so interesting to watch though

Merkin

snowbabe wrote: »

Great programme on last night,it more or less showed the angle of shots at the door were from a height.He claims he didnt have his legs on so he is lieing.

What channel was it on please?

snowbabe

TV 3 I think but not sure,they spoke about the trajectory of the shots ,and did a fairly even balance of this tragic event Imo . The forensics would want to be very good for the prosecution.Also earlier I said she was dressed but in fact it was shorts and top,so not technically dressed,my apologies.

snowbabe

Witness getting a total grilling by the defence this morning.

robinph

I guess this witness is to do with the firing of a gun in a restaurant? Hadn't heard that Martin Rooney had been around for that meal.

snowbabe

Yes,he is but defence has called for an early 2 hour lunch break to look over notes as they didnt know this witness was going to be called today.The boxer has just said that OP asked someone else to take the blame for the gun going off because of media attention on him.Also the neighbour will be called again,after defence sees more statements by both him and his wife given to police.

robinph

Defence doesn't seem overly bothered, despite being caught off guard with the unexpected witness, as he was joking about getting his understudy to ask the questions because he didn't want to go asking awkward questions of a boxer.

AEDIC

Mr Johnson got himself into a right old pickle this morning, on the segment I was watching (around 8am) you could hear the emotion in his voice as he was getting upset.

Defence lawyer had him on toast with regards to him and his wife comparing statements and at one point Mr Johnson actually repeated something that his wife had only given in her evidence to the court and not in her statement. Defence lawyer tried same tactic (discrediting the witness) on Mr Johnson's wife yesterday but it didnt work out as well as she was fairly stoic.

btw - morto for the woman whose phone went off....

robinph

^ Missed that bit. That does explain why he was being so picky about questioning her the day before. He'd obviously spotted something with the statements, just needed one of them to crack a bit.

I guess the SA justice system is actually a lot fairer as far as witnesses go though and that they only have the one judge making decisions. Any theatre that the lawyers would try to make out of questioning the witnesses in front of a jury to give the impression of them being a dodgy witness is a waste of time. The only person that needs to be convinced is the professional judge and they are hopefully less likely to be swayed by any show being put on to break a witness.

The judge apparently has to also justify their decision so that it removes the possibility of them being accused of bias. The facts are the only thing that matters, and persuading a bunch of your peers who don't know or care about what is going on is avoided. Benefits to either way of doing things, but I think the SA replacement for the jury trial (as that would have been impossible to use given their history) is a pretty good way of doing things.

Aidric

robinph wrote: »

These prosecution witnesses don't seem to backing up the prosecution version of events.

I was listening to a discussion on this between Cathal McCoille and a South African journalist this morning.

Under strong cross examination by the defence it would appear that Mr Johnson is tailoring his testimony to fit that of his wife.

robinph

Don't think the judge has the same audio feed as the rest of us as she keep having trouble with hearing people over the air-conditioning.

snowbabe

The doctor has given some damning evidence this morning ,lights were on when he heard shots and screams.Defence will rip him apart no doubt.Also quite graffic in his descriptions of Reeva,poor family.What does anyone else make of it?

robinph

snowbabe wrote: »

The doctor has given some damning evidence this morning ,lights were on when he heard shots and screams.Defence will rip him apart no doubt.Also quite graffic in his descriptions of Reeva,poor family.What does anyone else make of it?

That is why the defence guy is pushing the line that what people heard was the cricket bat and door, after having been woken up by gunshots initially...then a bit later the bangs of the door being knocked in which they have all mistaken for gunshots.

Couldn't figure out why he was going on about the cricket bat the last couple of days, now makes sense.

robinph

Something I thought odd earlier was that everyone is referring to the accused as Oscar.

Very odd for the prosecution to be calling him Oscar as well, it seems far too friendly for the prosecution to be doing so and I'd expect them to be calling him Mr Pistouris or the accused at every opportunity.

snowbabe

I hadn't noticed that but the defence calls him Mr ,also defence trying to say oscar's voice like a womans in distress.He will call voice experts to prove it could be.According to op he also said he went to open door for security,then went up and got Reeva.But he hadnt phoned an ambulance until the doctor arrived,doctor saw someone moving in bathroom,defence didnt say that tied in with op's version as he went up to get Reeva .Doctor also said op went back upstairs while he was outside talking to security.I'd hate to be up against that defence,he's unrelenting !

snubbleste

Pistorius retched and heaved as Professor Gert Saayman gave graphic testimony about the multiple bullet wounds he admits inflicting on his girlfriend. The judge had earlier banned live broadcasting and tweeting of evidence by Prof Gert Saayman after prosecutor Gerrie Nel argued the testimony would have an 'explicitly graphic nature'.
Prof Saayman said the 'very personal nature' of his autopsy findings as well as graphic details about the injuries could also 'compromise the dignity of the deceased'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26510897

Gawd, must be awful stuff.

robinph

Ballistics show that Pistouris was on his stumps when firing the gun and wielding the bat at the door.

That doesn't prove that they were not arguing or anything, but does back up Pistouris version of events, and the prosecution version is that he was wearing his legs. What else do they have that might be able to disprove Pistouris version?

It's almost as if the SA police are incompetent fools who jumped the gun in charging him with pre-meditated murder before they had actually considered any of the available evidence and then had to try and make a story to match their charge against him.

Cienciano

I was following this story when it broke fairly closely, but haven't followed it at all recently since they're back in court.
Possibly a stupid question cos it's early, but what's the thinking now? Murder/accident? Is the whole "an intruder did it" still an argument?

robinph

The only things that are certain is that Pistouris definitely did it, and he is an idiot.

What they are arguing over is if he intended to kill her or not. Not seen anything from the prosecution yet to dispute the version of events that Pistouris gave in the bail hearing that he thought it was an intruder.

The only other thing that can be stated as fact so far from the case is that the SA police are rubbish at investigating anything.

snubbleste

They dragged the bathroom door into court - after removing it from the scene of the crime and storing it in a police station..!

robinph

Forensics guy:
Didn't visit the house.
Can't see bits of wood next to the main bit of evidence (the door) until the defence points it out to him in a photo that he was stood next to them.
Never questioned why bits of the door were missing from the evidence presented to him for investigating.
Didn't take any notes, and his report is apparently just the photos that he took.
Their analysis of the door regarding the cricket bat hits was with it leant at an angle against a wall.

This guy is an idiot.

TwoBirds

Side note: Did anyone else think the forensic guy giving testimony today bore an uncanny resemblance to Ricky Gervais?

But on to the matter at hand...I've been following this case quite closely and avoided posting about it as to reserve judgement. But I did think it was interesting when I saw a tweet today (believe it was by the BBC journalist Andrew Harding) that said the prosecution have yet to present evidence that would completely and utterly disprove Pistorius' claims. I'm still on the fence, I have to admit (bear in mind I would've been a big fan of Pistorius before the 14th February) but it seems to me that the defence are doing a more than adequate job of showing that the evidence pointing to a premeditated murder (or similar) has been fairly flimsy so far.

That's not to discount the testimony of those who said they heard a woman screaming and then shots etc. But alot of the cross-examination has brought to mind (for me, anyway) the idea of the 'third memory'*, where someone has recollections that have subconsciously tailored themselves to a certain conclusion based on other accounts or knowledge that that person has been privy too. I'm talking most specifically about the testimony of Michelle Burger and her husband here.

*The artist Pierre Huyghe once created a very interesting work called 'The Third Memory', where IFIRC he interviewed the bank robber who was the basis for the film 'Dog Day Afternoon'. To cut a long story short, he got the guy to re-enact a bank robbery that he had performed (that had then been recreated in the movie). But Huyghe set this against a split screen that showed the CCTV footage of the actual bank robbery, as well as against scenes from the film 'Dog Day Afternoon', and it became clear that even though the bank robber had originally carried out the actions depicted on the CCTV footage, his memory had become somewhat altered through watching 'Dog Day Afternoon', a dramitisation of his own story. V interesting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Huyghe#Third_Memory if anyone wants to check it out.

Ash.J.Williams

Should a person be sent to jail for being a a complete f**ing idiot? absolutely...Owning a gun should at least require basic intelligence and cop on....

The girl didn't stand a chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

robinph

Guy hitting a door with a cricket bat and then shooting at it that the defence asked the forensics guy to have a look at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BMMeYM7jRo

Nobody is going to be able to tell the difference between the two sounds from 180m away unless they have some recording equipment setup and then analyse it afterwards. At 2am, when you are still half asleep, they are indistinguishable.

robinph

They are now going through photos of the scene.

Various things moved, or nicked by the cops, before they took photos of where everything was. One cop was messing about with the gun after picking it up. They don't know who went where when. The door was stuffed into a body bag and then into a van that was too small to transport it without potentially damaging it.

Even the photos they do have don't have any date stamps on them:

Nel tries to find "metadata" to show when pictures were taken but photographer's camera indicates "a different year and a different date".

It's it unbelievable levels of incompetence from the police at every step.