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

robinph

Muff Richardson wrote: »

I've the majority of your posts, simple question for you, do you believe he is innocent of the charges being brought against him?

I believe that there is no where near enough evidence for the charge of murder, and there certainly wasn't any thing at the start when they charged him. They have since tried to cobble together the ear witness testimony, phone records and forensics to suggest murder, but none of that was available when they charged him so I can in no way believe that they had anything to base the charge on, other than jumping to conclusions. It is not a sound case.

He is 100% guilty of manslaughter.

upstairs for coffee

When is the verdict due does anyone know?

Merkin

Mid May. From CNN;

The trial, which enters its fourth week on Monday, will continue until April 4, then break for a one-week recess before resuming from April 14 until May 16, the Pretoria court announced in a written statement. It said "all parties involved" had agreed to the dates.

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

I think I get where you're coming from with the reasonable doubt. It is plausable, maybe not believable, but it could be true and that's the way I've been looking at it too, admittedly only today though so I can't claim to know a lot about the case.

I have beyond reasonable doubt as to his testimony! I doubt every word he says. Completely and utterly incredible.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

I have beyond reasonable doubt as to his testimony! I doubt every word he says. Completely and utterly incredible.

Ok.

Must be very hard for the people in court to watch and listen to all this.

sopretty

Her poor mother. I assume the woman beside the mother is Reeva's aunt?

sopretty

Merkin wrote: »

Mid May. From CNN;

The trial, which enters its fourth week on Monday, will continue until April 4, then break for a one-week recess before resuming from April 14 until May 16, the Pretoria court announced in a written statement. It said "all parties involved" had agreed to the dates.

I think that all changed when one of the experts (the ones either side of the judge) became ill, so it was adjourned for a week until it resumed yesterday.

sopretty

So it's stood down again. How is he going to cope with cross-examination? His mental health is under serious question at this point.

Kristopherus

sopretty wrote: »

So it's stood down again. How is he going to cope with cross-examination? His mental health is under serious question at this point.

Wel, I look at it two ways. Either he's an absolutely incredible actor and lying through his sobs, or he's telling the truth. If he's telling the truth, then he will most likely be convicted of involuntary murder(manslaughter in our lingo) and get 3-8 yrs in jail.

sopretty

Kristopherus wrote: »

Wel, I look at it two ways. Either he's an absolutely incredible actor and lying through his sobs, or he's telling the truth. If he's telling the truth, then he will most likely be convicted of involuntary murder(manslaughter in our lingo) and get 3-8 yrs in jail.

No, I don't believe so. I think he is racked with guilt. Guilt is a stronger emotion than just loss. I firmly believe his sobs. I firmly believe he regrets what he did and feels incredible loss and guilt. I'd be worried to be honest that he will need hospitalisation soon. He's not able to handle this at all, and it's not even at cross-examination stage. If I murdered someone I loved in a fit of rage, I'd be sobbing with guilt and loss too.

I think that if they keep pressing on with this, he'll end up needing hospitalisation. I think his distress and anguish is genuine.

whatstherush

Kristopherus wrote: »

Wel, I look at it two ways. Either he's an absolutely incredible actor and lying through his sobs, or he's telling the truth. If he's telling the truth, then he will most likely be convicted of involuntary murder(manslaughter in our lingo) and get 3-8 yrs in jail.

Why would he have to act, he can still feel remorse now even if he murdered her.

Muff Richardson

robinph wrote: »

I believe that there is no where near enough evidence for the charge of murder, and there certainly wasn't any thing at the start when they charged him. They have since tried to cobble together the ear witness testimony, phone records and forensics to suggest murder, but none of that was available when they charged him so I can in no way believe that they had anything to base the charge on, other than jumping to conclusions. It is not a sound case.

He is 100% guilty of manslaughter.

I'll admit I know little to nothing about the technicalities of any legal system, maybe you have a greater insight/experience into it to be able to say that much. Just going by what I have read or seen in the media I would actually say the complete opposite, I have absolutely no idea how this is even being considered as anything other than murder. Its more to do with his version of events than any evidence put forth against him. I find the whole thing to be farcical and utterly absurd at the best of times to be honest.

brimal

Pistorius also lied about breaking down the door while on his prosthetic legs.
The forensic expert concluded he was on his stumps when breaking down the door.

I have been following this trial since the start, and there is many inconsistencies in Pistorius' version of events and things that just don't add up. However he has a very good defence, Roux especially.

State prosecutor Nel is a shrewd character and it will be fascinating seeing him cross-examine Pistorius in the next few days.

sopretty

Again they mentioned that he had thrown his vest over his prosthetic legs. There is something they're getting at with this point, I feel. His version of events is the most implausible defence that I have ever heard of.

castletownman

Am I the only one getting annoyed at the over-intrusiveness of the media coverage in court? I mean who really wants to see a clearly emotionally damaged individual completely break down live on air? (all questions regarding guilt aside)

Hard to watch

sopretty

castletownman wrote: »

Am I the only one getting annoyed at the over-intrusiveness of the media coverage in court? I mean who really wants to see a clearly emotionally damaged individual completely break down live on air? (all questions regarding guilt aside)

Hard to watch

Yes, I think you are. Since you're watching it.

All courts apart from family courts have media present.

robinph

Muff Richardson wrote: »

I'll admit I know little to nothing about the technicalities of any legal system, maybe you have a greater insight/experience into it to be able to say that much. Just going by what I have read or seen in the media I would actually say the complete opposite, I have absolutely no idea how this is even being considered as anything other than murder. Its more to do with his version of events than any evidence put forth against him. I find the whole thing to be farcical and utterly absurd at the best of times to be honest.

So just because his story doesn't sound quite right to you you therefore think he murdered her?

His story is just that, his story and explanation of what happened and explains what he says are the sequence of various events was. The state has not come up with anything to back their claim of murder, except a hunch that the very dodgy and incompetent initial investigating officer had. Pistouris version of events sounding a bit odd to the rest of us is also not evidence of murder in itself, it is just evidence towards a very unfortunate sequence of events. The prosecution need to come up with something much better than they have so far to back their murder claim.

If they do have something else that they have yet to pull out of their hat then great. I don't have any problem at all with Pistouris being guilty of murder (I know that statement sounds wrong, but you know what I mean). I do have a problem with him being charged with murder when there is nothing to back up that charge, if he is found guilty based on the evidence that they have shown so far then it is very likely to get thrown out again on appeal if they have similar setup to our legal systems.

jimgoose

Am I the only one wondering what kind of a tapioca-headed buck-ape empties an automatic pistol into a closed bathroom door, knowing that his ladyfriend is home and possibly out of bed?

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

So just because his story doesn't sound quite right to you you therefore think he murdered her?

His story is just that, his story and explanation of what happened and explains what he says are the sequence of various events was. The state has not come up with anything to back their claim of murder, except a hunch that the very dodgy and incompetent initial investigating officer had. Pistouris version of events sounding a bit odd to the rest of us is also not evidence of murder in itself, it is just evidence towards a very unfortunate sequence of events. The prosecution need to come up with something much better than they have so far to back their murder claim.

If they do have something else that they have yet to pull out of their hat then great. I don't have any problem at all with Pistouris being guilty of murder (I know that statement sounds wrong, but you know what I mean). I do have a problem with him being charged with murder when there is nothing to back up that charge, if he is found guilty based on the evidence that they have shown so far then it is very likely to get thrown out again on appeal if they have similar setup to our legal systems.

I'm not 100% sure of how these charges work in SA. But, if you find a dude, covered in blood, crying over his dead girlfriend's body, who admits to shooting her, and you have numerous witnesses stating that they heard arguments and a woman screaming, that would be fair grounds for charging him with murder I think?

sopretty

jimgoose wrote: »

Am I the only one wondering what kind of a tapioca-headed buck-ape empties an automatic pistol into a closed bathroom door, knowing that his ladyfriend is home and possibly out of bed?

If you believe his version of events, you might wonder.

Vito Corleone

The title of this thread never fails to amuse me.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure of how these charges work in SA. But, if you find a dude, covered in blood, crying over his dead girlfriend's body, who admits to shooting her, and you have numerous witnesses stating that they heard arguments and a woman screaming, that would be fair grounds for charging him with murder I think?

Except they didn't have that.

They had a guy who said he shot her and a dead body. I think the witnesses regarding the arguments only came up later after they had already decided on going for the murder charge. The couple that were in the next estate over and had a different story to each other only came forward after the bail hearing I believe and that was part of their testimony.

They should have had something much better in the first place to go with the murder charge. They should have stuck with the equivalent of manslaughter, then if more stuff came up during the investigations they could have upped it to murder.

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

So just because his story doesn't sound quite right to you you therefore think he murdered her?

His story is just that, his story and explanation of what happened and explains what he says are the sequence of various events was. The state has not come up with anything to back their claim of murder, except a hunch that the very dodgy and incompetent initial investigating officer had. Pistouris version of events sounding a bit odd to the rest of us is also not evidence of murder in itself, it is just evidence towards a very unfortunate sequence of events. The prosecution need to come up with something much better than they have so far to back their murder claim.

Again were back to the word incredulous, by your reasoning Oscar could claim that his story is, aliens came down and shot her and thats fine because the state "has not come up with anything to back their claim of murder". His story is unbelievable. So if the judge concurs with this she can only infer that he is lying for a reason.

seamus

Kristopherus wrote: »

Wel, I look at it two ways. Either he's an absolutely incredible actor and lying through his sobs, or he's telling the truth. If he's telling the truth, then he will most likely be convicted of involuntary murder(manslaughter in our lingo) and get 3-8 yrs in jail.

It's an easy mistake to make that if someone seems genuinely upset, then they must not be guilty, or if someone is stoney-faced then they must be guilty.

People act differently under stress, and someone damn guilty could convince themselves they're not, and someone not guilty could be broken and beaten and just not care anymore.

This is why it's important that juries ignore the emotional state of everyone who gives any testimony and go on facts instead. There could even be a case for having the cross-examination done without the jury and just having the contents of it read back to the jury with none of the emotional context.

Merkin wrote: »

It's chaotic

It's South Africa. The entire economic/governmental/social system that SA runs on is chaotic and slapdash at the best of times.

It's funny that this thread has basically become a repeat of where it was back at the start.
You have one group of people who have already decided that Reeva was shot following an argument and judge all evidence based on that assumption (i.e. ignore all evidence which doesn't suit that assumption), and then you've another group of people who've made no assumptions, are trying to judge all evidence at face value and getting slated for it.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Except they didn't have that.

They had a guy who said he shot her and a dead body. I think the witnesses regarding the arguments only came up later after they had already decided on going for the murder charge. The couple that were in the next estate over and had a different story to each other only came forward after the bail hearing I believe and that was part of their testimony.

They should have had something much better in the first place to go with the murder charge. They should have stuck with the equivalent of manslaughter, then if more stuff came up during the investigations they could have upped it to murder.

So you haven't a clue really?

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

Except they didn't have that.

They had a guy who said he shot her and a dead body. I think the witnesses regarding the arguments only came up later after they had already decided on going for the murder charge. The couple that were in the next estate over and had a different story to each other only came forward after the bail hearing I believe and that was part of their testimony.

They should have had something much better in the first place to go with the murder charge. They should have stuck with the equivalent of manslaughter, then if more stuff came up during the investigations they could have upped it to murder.

They had his ramshackle I didn't know it was her story from day one, which was plenty to charge him on.

whatstherush

seamus wrote: »

It's an easy mistake to make that if someone seems genuinely upset, then they must not be guilty, or if someone is stoney-faced then they must be guilty.

People act differently under stress, and someone damn guilty could convince themselves they're not, and someone not guilty could be broken and beaten and just not care anymore.

This is why it's important that juries ignore the emotional state of everyone who gives any testimony and go on facts instead. There could even be a case for having the cross-examination done without the jury and just having the contents of it read back to the jury with none of the emotional context.
It's South Africa. The entire economic/governmental/social system that SA runs on is chaotic and slapdash at the best of times.

It's funny that this thread has basically become a repeat of where it was back at the start.
You have one group of people who have already decided that Reeva was shot following an argument and judge all evidence based on that assumption (i.e. ignore all evidence which doesn't suit that assumption), and then you've another group of people who've made no assumptions, are trying to judge all evidence at face value and getting slated for it.

So Robin declaring that the neighbors testimony is rubbish is judging evidence fairly?

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

Again were back to the word incredulous, by your reasoning Oscar could claim that his story is, aliens came down and shot her and thats fine because the state "has not come up with anything to back their claim of murder". His story is unbelievable. So if the judge concurs with this she can only infer that he is lying for a reason.

Well if his story was that aliens did it then that is fine. The prosecution would still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Pistouris did it. Pistouris doesn't have to prove that the aliens did it.



You need to prove guilt, you don't need to prove innocence.

Of course if you can prove innocence then that would save everyone a lot of time.

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

Well if his story was that aliens did it then that is fine. The prosecution would still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Pistouris did it. Pistouris doesn't have to prove that the aliens did it.



You need to prove guilt, you don't need to prove innocence.

Of course if you can prove innocence then that would save everyone a lot of time.

No they wouldn't, all they would have to is prove that his his story is unbelievable and they can infer the reason why he lied.

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

They had his ramshackle I didn't know it was her story from day one, which was plenty to charge him on.

No it isn't.

Just because his story might have holes in it does not make him guilty of anything.

whatstherush wrote: »

So Robin declaring that the neighbors testimony is rubbish is judging evidence fairly?

The neighbours testimony is all inconsistent and unreliable and contradictory. It will not have much weight with the judge who is aware that witnesses are unreliable and don't know what they are talking about.

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

No they wouldn't, all they would have to is prove that his his story is unbelievable and they can infer the reason why he lied.

Thankfully you are wrong.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

No it isn't.

Just because his story might have holes in it does not make him guilty of anything.



The neighbours testimony is all inconsistent and unreliable and contradictory. It will not have much weight with the judge who is aware that witnesses are unreliable and don't know what they are talking about.

So, he's not guilty, is it?

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

The neighbours testimony is all inconsistent and unreliable and contradictory. It will not have much weight with the judge who is aware that witnesses are unreliable and don't know what they are talking about.

Except Oscar of course

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

Thankfully you are wrong.

We'll see

seamus

whatstherush wrote: »

So Robin declaring that the neighbors testimony is rubbish is judging evidence fairly?

It is if you're judging it based on the evidence. He's not dismissing the neighbours' testimony because it disagrees with his version of events, he's dismissing it because the testimonies all disagree with eachother.
One of those witness testimonies may be valid, but that's impossible to say when they all conflict. So it seems fair and logical to dismiss it as evidence, otherwise all you're doing is cherrypicking the witness account which best fits your own personal favoured scenario.

whatstherush

seamus wrote: »

It is if you're judging it based on the evidence. He's not dismissing the neighbours' testimony because it disagrees with his version of events, he's dismissing it because the testimonies all disagree with eachother.
One of those witness testimonies may be valid, but that's impossible to say when they all conflict. So it seems fair and logical to dismiss it as evidence, otherwise all you're doing is cherrypicking the witness account which best fits your own personal favoured scenario.

They don't conflict everything though, there is general theme going threw them of one shot, womens scream, more shots

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

Except Oscar of course

Nope, he is equally unreliable. But he is the only actual witness to events.

whatstherush

seamus wrote: »

It is if you're judging it based on the evidence. He's not dismissing the neighbours' testimony because it disagrees with his version of events, he's dismissing it because the testimonies all disagree with eachother.
One of those witness testimonies may be valid, but that's impossible to say when they all conflict. So it seems fair and logical to dismiss it as evidence, otherwise all you're doing is cherrypicking the witness account which best fits your own personal favoured scenario.

So judging Oscars evidence today, you honestly don't find his story unbelievable?

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

Nope, he is equally unreliable. But he is the only actual witness to events.

He is also the person with the absolute highest motivation to lie in his testimony.

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

We'll see

Nope, you would still be wrong in your assertion that "all they would have to is prove that his his story is unbelievable and they can infer the reason why he lied.".

If he is found guilty of murder or not would not change the fact they the prosecution has to do more than just not believe his version of events. The prosecution need to prove the case for murder beyond reasonable doubt. Just saying they don't believe him isn't enough, they need to make an actual case.

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

He is also the person with the absolute highest motivation to lie in his testimony.

Yep, which is why it will be extensively questioned and pulled apart for holes.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Nope, you would still be wrong in your assertion that "all they would have to is prove that his his story is unbelievable and they can infer the reason why he lied.".

If he is found guilty of murder or not would not change the fact they the prosecution has to do more than just not believe his version of events. The prosecution need to prove the case for murder beyond reasonable doubt. Just saying they don't believe him isn't enough, they need to make an actual case.

I'd say they'll be well able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his version of events is a complete and utter fabrication. He has already admitted to shooting her.
The forensic evidence, the witnesses, the whatsapp messages.....

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

Yep, which is why it will be extensively questioned and pulled apart for holes.

It doesn't need to be pulled apart, you could drive a bus through the horsehite he spewed today.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

I'd say they'll be well able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his version of events is a complete and utter fabrication.

sopretty wrote: »

He has already admitted to shooting her.

Irrelavent to the charge of murder.

sopretty wrote: »

The forensic evidence,

The door didn't really prove anything, other than incompetence of the SA police losing bits of it. The guy seemed to say that the shots were fired from his stumps. They were less conclusive about the cricket bat hits and what angle they were made from.

sopretty wrote: »

the witnesses,

The ear witnesses are not especially useful.
I think there were queries over the security guy and who called who in what order and what he stated didn't match the phone records, just to point out the reliability of witnesses even when there are records showing what did happen.

sopretty wrote: »

the whatsapp messages.....

Meh, some messages between people, doesn't really point to anything in particular

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

It doesn't need to be pulled apart, you could drive a bus through the horsehite he spewed today.

Go on then...

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

Go on then...

I already have, but you can't see through those rose tinted glasses past the end of your nose never mind the 5 feet to the other side of a bed.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Go on then...

You wake up in the middle of the night. Your girlfriend is still sitting up in bed, on her phone. You sit up beside her. She asks you whether you could not sleep. You say you can't. You get up then to pull the curtains in the room and pull in the fans. The room is pitch dark, so you can't see what you're doing, though you could see enough to pull in the fans. You hear a noise in the bathroom. You creep around the bed and retrieve your weapon. You don't notice that your girlfriend is no longer sitting up in the bed on her iphone. You whisper to her then to call the police. She doesn't reply. You can't see anything, but you have your gun and proceed to the bathroom screaming. Then you decide to stay quiet. Your girlfriend does not reply to say that it's her in the bathroom and not an intruder. You proceed, and shoot the f*ck out of the door of the toilet. Because you perceived (in the dark) to see the door being opened (which he later testified was locked).

QED.

robinph

Yep, fine. That is pretty much his version of events.

So where are the bus sized holes in that?

jimgoose

robinph wrote: »

Yep, fine. That is pretty much his version of events.

So where are the bus sized holes in that?

It paints him as, at best, an idiot who shouldn't have a license for a Nerf gun and, at worst, a dangerous lunatic who shouldn't have a license for a Nerf gun.

robinph

jimgoose wrote: »

It paints him as, at best, an idiot who shouldn't have a license for a Nerf gun and, at worst, a dangerous lunatic who shouldn't have a license for a Nerf gun.

Agreed.

So what would you charge him with based on him being an idiot?

Murder or manslaughter?

Remember the only thing you have to go on is that he's an idiot.