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

robinph

brimal wrote: »

Cross-examination starting now.

Wow Nel is going in very aggressively from the start.

He is being very shouty. Can see OP collapsing in the bucket in the witness stand during this.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Is there any online stream from the court?.

I've been following this through the media but I'm off work today and wouldn't mind spending a little more time on the story today.

brimal

robinph wrote: »

He is being very shouty. Can see OP collapsing in the bucket in the witness stand during this.

Nel was said to be too passive for the first half of the trial. Roux was grabbing all the headlines with his abrasive (albeit charming) style.

Looks like Nel is going for a different approach now.

robinph

Avalyn Disgusting Spinach wrote: »

Is there any online stream from the court?.

I've been following this through the media but I'm off work today and wouldn't mind spending a little more time on the story today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26951686

Muff Richardson

seamus wrote: »

As the only witness to what happened, it should be assumed that his version is closest to the truth

i've a small suggestion to make, read back on that for yourself until the utter stupidity of it dawns on you and then click on that edit button and paste the following in: "apologies to all concerned for the utter nonsensical b*llocks I wrote in this space previously, kind regards, seamus"

Tasden

Anyone able to shed some light on the watermelon video, I'm a bit behind though as I paused a few mins back

brimal

Tasden wrote: »

Anyone able to shed some light on the watermelon video, I'm a bit behind though as I paused a few mins back

Nel has started asking Pistorius "You wouldn't lie would you? Everything you say in court is the truth.. etc. etc." Pistorius agrees.

Nel then asks him what is a 'Zombie stopper' and has he ever used that term or been in a situation where that term is used. Pistorius said no.

Nel then want to show a video to the court where Pistorius has used this term, to show he is lying.

Defence say this is an ambush as this video wasn't put forward as evidence previously. Nel says this isn't evidence, it's just part of the cross-examination.

Court taking a break to decide if it's legal to show this video.

Tasden

brimal wrote: »

Nel has started asking Pistorius "You wouldn't lie would you? Everything you say in court is the truth.. etc. etc." Pistorius agrees.

Nel then asks him what is a 'Zombie stopper' and has he ever used that term or been in a situation where that term is used. Pistorius said no.

Nel then want to show a video to the court where Pistorius has used this term, to show he is lying.

Defence say this is an ambush as this video wasn't put forward as evidence previously. Nel says this isn't evidence, it's just part of the cross-examination.

Court taking a break to decide if it's legal to show this video.

Thanks for that although I got that much, I meant more the content of the video- it said it was shown on sky and is in the public domain, I'm assuming its of him shooting it or something but trying to figure out what their approach is...

brimal

Tasden wrote: »

Thanks for that although I got that much, I meant more the content of the video- it said it was shown on sky and is in the public domain, I'm assuming its of him shooting it or something but trying to figure out what their approach is...

Well first it shows he has lied under oath. It's not much of a lie though.

I think the video might show Pistorius' love for guns and his aggressive nature when using guns or something to that effect.

I haven't seen the video so not sure really.

Edit: Here is the video: http://www.news.com.au/world/oscar-pistorius-pictured-at-gun-range-just-months-before-shooting-dead-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp/story-fndir2ev-1226840840600

Tasden

brimal wrote: »

Well first it shows he has lied under oath. It's not much of a lie though.

I think the video might show Pistorius' love for guns and his aggressive nature when using guns or something to that effect.

I haven't seen the video so not sure really.

Cool thanks, i should've kept watching as they're explaining now where I'm at on the box.

I don't think OP is going to last long Tbh

robinph

Tasden wrote: »

Anyone able to shed some light on the watermelon video, I'm a bit behind though as I paused a few mins back

No idea. He seemed to be going on about "zombie stoppers" and asking if OP had ever heard of that. Then he switched to going on about a video.

The video presumably shows a melon being shot at by a "zombie stopper" and he'll use that to "prove" that OP is lying or some such.

All still kind of irrelevant to the case at hand though and it's back to "can you remember what you were doing at 3:07pm on the 21st August 2009", most people would answer "What, no idea?" to that question. The prosecution then pulls a video out of his hat and proceeds to claim that you are lying because you didn't remember what happened on that day.

The reason that the defence is claiming it's inadmissible is because that would be ambushing the witness with something they can't have a hope of knowing about in advance.

We already know that OP is not to be trusted with guns, and that has been shown several times through various accounts. What they are unable to show is any justification for the claim of murder, incompetent gun handling skills does not make you a murderer.


I am surprised that the defence didn't call any of the other ear witnesses that he was referring to who's statements backed up OP's timeline. Sounded as if they were the actual next door neighbours rather than from the next estate over. Maybe their statements are already recorded in evidence though and there wasn't deemed to be a reason to call them in?

brimal

The video is a good start to the cross-examination - it shows a loud, trigger-happy, cursing and shouting OP. It's a far cry from the softly spoken, quivering wreck that OP has been the last few days on stand.

There is also shouting in the video, possibly OP shouting in it. This could be used against the whole 'OP shouts/screams like a girl' defence.

pH

brimal wrote: »

There is also shouting in the video, possibly OP shouting in it. This could be used against the whole 'OP shouts/screams like a girl' defence.

What evidence has been shown by the defence that "OP screams like a girl"?

I assume if Seamus walks into a room and there's a toddler there and a box of washing powder tossed all over the room he'll believe the kid's denial. It's the only logical thing. :pac:

brimal

pH wrote: »

What evidence has been shown by the defence that "OP screams like a girl"?

I don't believe they have shown any evidence so far but they have repeatedly mentioned that OP's screams are like a girl or very high-pitched.

There was I think 4 witnesses so far for the defence that stated they heard a girl screaming. Roux has each time tried to put doubt on that by saying it could have been OP.

Roux let slip previously that there was some 'scream tests' carried out with the witnesses but it hasn't come to light yet.

Lord Trollington

Was pistorious wearing his legs at the time of the shooting?

gramar

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Was pistorious wearing his legs at the time of the shooting?

Only a t-shirt and boxers it seems.

robinph

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Was pistorious wearing his legs at the time of the shooting?

No, according the the forensics ballistics guy.

They were not quite sure about the legs being on or not during the cricket bat hitting the door.

robinph

All up and down today.

In for 5 minutes and then back out again.

Thought the prosecution was getting a bit carried away with himself there and the judge didn't seem impressed with him putting the picture of Reeva up. OP actually did well in his responses.

Sierra Oscar

Are they really going to have to adjourn the trial every time Pistorius starts crying?

Deise Vu

seamus wrote: »

What's the contradicting evidence, though? Genuine question; like I say I haven't been following this, so maybe there is. Whether you think his version of events is fabricated or not is somewhat irrelevant. As the only witness to what happened, it should be assumed that his version is closest to the truth, and the prosecution's job to provide evidence which contradicts his testimony.
For all of the people who claim his story is unbelievable, there's a remarkable lack of evidence which contradicts it.

What you're doing there is adding what-ifs to the story, to justify your own disbelief.

My wife has done a similar thing; she went into the bathroom and while she was there I got up and went upstairs to check on the child. When I came back into the bedroom, she was stood frozen to the spot - she had come out of the bathroom, and not having heard me get up, was frozen with terror thinking that someone was banging around upstairs and was coming into the bedroom.

We don't have a big bedroom. A cursory glance to her left and she could have confirmed that in fact it was me upstairs. But fear took over and her brain assumed that the reality which existed before she went into the bathroom was the same reality after she came out.

To me, it's perfectly plausible that she went to the bathroom, when he came back in he heard a noise in the bathroom, and fear took over. Expecting rational actions from someone whose body is coursing with adrenaline and clouded with terror, is an irrational expectation.

Are questions like, "Why did he not see she was not in bed?", relevant? Absolutely. But not being able to answer these questions does not disprove his story.

Isn't this case effectively guilty until proven innocent? A man shoots his girlfriend four times in a locked apartment in a secure compound with a pistol (as distinct from a machine gun burst). That doesn't leave a lot for the police to prove. What exactly can they do to disprove OP's cock and bull story? He exercised his right to silence until he and his advisers could concoct a far-fetched fantasy that might just squeeze into the known facts but that doesn't alter the fundamental known facts and he is producing nothing to convince me his fantasy version is correct.

There is nothing plausible about OP's defence to most reasonable people but I am just grateful it is being heard in front of a Judge and not a jury of idiots who are waiting for the 'CSI' moment that demolishes all possible alternatives including the fantasy alternatives.

PS: In your own scenario, your wife got out of a bed that you were in. When she came out of the bathroom, not having heard you leave it, in her mind you were in bed and there was someone else coming into the room. That is a world away from waking up in an empty bed, hearing a noise in the bathroom that any normal person would assume immediately was their partner taking a leak, scrambling for a gun, hobbling down a corridor (giving him time to think), then blasting four shots through a closed door without warning and, apparently , without hearing his girlfriend scream when the first bullet hit her in the hip. It is the worst defence I have ever heard. It might not even convince an Irish Jury.

Tasden

All the focus on the "on the balcony" seems a bit unwarranted. I know they are trying to establish that he lied and that he said he was on the balcony and then said he never went out onto the balcony but could it not be said that its just a turn of phrase? Like if I grabbed something off a balcony, regardless of whether or not I physically go out onto the balcony I would still say I went out to the balcony to get the item. I know its different when you're on trial and you need to make sure you are specific but it just seems a bit pedantic even for court especially when he explained the tripod leg being the only part actually ON the balcony.

Is there more evidence surrounding him being on the balcony? Like someone seeing him? Or are they trying to prove another point that involves him being there? They said something about hearing from the balcony... maybe its due to that??

seamus

Muff Richardson wrote: »

i've a small suggestion to make, read back on that for yourself until the utter stupidity of it dawns on you and then click on that edit button and paste the following in: "apologies to all concerned for the utter nonsensical b*llocks I wrote in this space previously, kind regards, seamus"

So what you're saying is that when someone is accused of a crime, we should assume that their story is a lie unless they can back it up with evidence? Guilty until proven innocent, awesome.

Isn't this case effectively guilty until proven innocent? A man shoots his girlfriend four times in a locked apartment in a secure compound with a pistol (as distinct from a machine gun burst). That doesn't leave a lot for the police to prove.

It leaves intent. Intent is what separates murder from manslaughter in the majority of jurisdictions. Keep in mind that nobody is trying to prove that OP shot her. That's beyond doubt. What's in question here is OP's intent at the time of the shooting.

Intent is very difficult to prove, but regardless of the case or the circumstances, you have to assume he is innocent of murder (i.e. he did not have murderous intent) and it is up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. His testimony is somewhat irrelevant in this regard - i.e. if the police had zero evidence of intent, then he would not even have to say anything - but in a case like this it would harm his defence to not provide his eyewitness testimony.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

PS: In your own scenario, your wife got out of a bed that you were in. When she came out of the bathroom, not having heard you leave it, in her mind you were in bed and there was someone else coming into the room. That is a world away from waking up in an empty bed, hearing a noise in the bathroom that any normal person would assume immediately was their partner taking a leak, scrambling for a gun, hobbling down a corridor (giving him time to think), then blasting four shots through a closed door without warning and, apparently , without hearing his girlfriend scream when the first bullet hit her in the hip. It is the worst defence I have ever heard. It might not even convince an Irish Jury.

It's only different because his wife presumably doesn't carry a gun around with her. If she did it may well have been a different scenario and there would have been no need for her to check where seamus was because she "knew" that he was still in bed.

sopretty

Does the trial resume at 1pm GMT? Missed all of the coverage this morning.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

It's only different because his wife presumably doesn't carry a gun around with her. If she did it may well have been a different scenario and there would have been no need for her to check where seamus was because she "knew" that he was still in bed.

As I said, thank God this is not being tried in front of a jury. The scenario would only be the same if the wife woke up in bed and froze because she heard Seamus moving around in the bathroom. That is a situation that happens to every couple at sometime or other. What is the usual reaction? You go back to sleep.

Edit: In case my wife is reading: you ask are they OK and is there anything you can get them. Then you go back to sleep (without waiting for an answer).

nc6000

His defence is complete and utter absolute nonsense.

Deise Vu

seamus wrote: »

It leaves intent. Intent is what separates murder from manslaughter in the majority of jurisdictions. Keep in mind that nobody is trying to prove that OP shot her. That's beyond doubt. What's in question here is OP's intent at the time of the shooting.

Intent is very difficult to prove, but regardless of the case or the circumstances, you have to assume he is innocent of murder (i.e. he did not have murderous intent) and it is up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. His testimony is somewhat irrelevant in this regard - i.e. if the police had zero evidence of intent, then he would not even have to say anything - but in a case like this it would harm his defence to not provide his eyewitness testimony.

The only person who knows what OP's intentions were for sure is OP. To believe him innocent you have to believe that he didn't notice Reeva wasn't beside him (the first thing any person would do), didn't think of calling the police or asking his girlfriend to call the police, approached a closed door in his own apartment, didn't think of calling a warning and didn't hear her scream as she most assuredly would have when he shot her in the hip and he chose to ignore all the legal requirements to discharge a weapon that he signed up to whenever he bought his gun.

Sorry but no amount of tears and retching is going to convince that this shooting was the world's most bizarre accident.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

The only person who knows what OP's intentions were for sure is OP. To believe him innocent you have to believe that he didn't notice Reeva wasn't beside him (the first thing any person would do), didn't think of calling the police or asking his girlfriend to call the police, approached a closed door in his own apartment, didn't think of calling a warning and didn't hear her scream as she most assuredly would have when he shot her in the hip and he chose to ignore all the legal requirements to discharge a weapon that he signed up to whenever he bought his gun.

Sorry but no amount of tears and retching is going to convince that this shooting was the world's most bizarre accident.

The only bit that you need to believe is the first point about him not noticing that she had moved from the bed, everything else follows on as perfectly logical sequence of events to happen. He didn't think she was beside him, he was by then stood up and moving the fan in, he knew that she was in the bed. What is so hard to believe about him not noticing that she'd moved whilst he was doing something else in the dark room?

All of the other points you make are ones that may well have resulted in the shooting not happening, but they are in no way things that someone would definitely do in that situation. They are just things that he should have done.

His failure to do those things do not prove his guilt of murder, they just prove his idiocy.

okioffice84

His snivelling, retching and wailing is coming off as pretty pathetic this stage- he should man-up. Jesus.

robinph

okioffice84 wrote: »

His snivelling, retching and wailing is coming off as pretty pathetic this stage- he should man-up. Jesus.

Why, just so that you can then say how cold and heartless he is?

pH

robinph wrote: »

The only bit that you need to believe is the first point about him not noticing that she had moved from the bed, everything else follows on as perfectly logical sequence of events to happen. He didn't think she was beside him, he was by then stood up and moving the fan in, he knew that she was in the bed. What is so hard to believe about him not noticing that she'd moved whilst he was doing something else in the dark room?

All of the other points you make are ones that may well have resulted in the shooting not happening, but they are in no way things that someone would definitely do in that situation. They are just things that he should have done.

His failure to do those things do not prove his guilt of murder, they just prove his idiocy.

So you're continuing your logical following of evidence, except the evidence related to witnesses that heard her screaming, which you dismiss with a handwave - because.

okioffice84

robinph wrote: »

Why, just so that you can then say how cold and heartless he is?

No, so he can go through the trial process like an adult. Innocent people do it all the time and they don't turn in to a quivering, bawling, puking mess.

robinph

pH wrote: »

So you're continuing your logical following of evidence, except the evidence related to witnesses that heard her screaming, which you dismiss with a handwave - because.

The ear witnesses are not especially reliable seeing as they were all woken up at 3am buy some noises. If you've just been woken up by a noise then how do you know what happened before that? You can only reliably state that you were then awake at X o'clock because you had a look at the clock. Some people heard screaming before hand, some heard 3 bangs, some heard two sets of four bangs, some heard screaming between and after the sets of bangs.

The only thing from the ear witnesses that can be reliably taken is that there was something going on that woke various people up in the early hours of the morning. The rest of it is just as unreliable as OP's story may be considered.

sopretty

The truth will always out!

'I reworked my evidence'.... heh heh

Lord Trollington

Looks like the next step for OP in this trial on top of the sobbing, sniffling and whinging is diarrhea of the verbal kind.

This has been a damaging day for him.

robinph

He's now going with the "accidental" firing line, despite defence interrupting and prompting him to revert to the previous answer.

brimal

Pistorius really giving vague and calculated answers. He won't answer clearly.

Roux looks a bit flustered and wrongly objected to something obvious.

sham69

Nel's questions are getting tough now so its time for the tears...

"I didnt have time to think"?
And then in the same breath, " I had many thoughts, someone was going to kill me, people from the same estate were tied up etc"?


Guy is lying through his teeth..

robinph

brimal wrote: »

Pistorius really giving vague and calculated answers. He won't answer clearly.

Roux looks a bit flustered and wrongly objected to something obvious.

I'd see his answers as going off script from what the defence wanted him to say actually.

sopretty

He really implicated himself when he said that he has to think of the implications of his replies, then tells them that all he can do is tell the truth. LOL. You either tell the truth, or you think of the implications and make sh*t up.

brimal

robinph wrote: »

I'd see his answers as going off script from what the defence wanted him to say actually.

I agree he seems to be going off script.

He mentioned something like "I'm just going to stick by my story, I know some of it doesn't add up and I will get grilled by you because of it" - that started alarm bells for the defence.

Then this 'accidental' talk looks like it came out of nowhere, defence and prosecution didn't expect that.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

He really implicated himself when he said that he has to think of the implications of his replies, then tells them that all he can do is tell the truth. LOL. You either tell the truth, or you think of the implications and make sh*t up.

Well no, earlier they kept nit picking about whether he went "on" the balcony or "to" the balcony for the fans. This one slip of a word obviously makes a huge difference to the case going by how long they spent discussing it. That's only one example of how something flippant can implicate him even if its not a change of story or event. If any of us were in his position, guilty or innocent, we'd think carefully about how to word our answer, especially when the questions are carefully thought out for the sole purposes of implicating him. Whatever about anything else, that's hardly an indicator of guilt.

robinph

brimal wrote: »

Then this 'accidental' talk looks like it came out of nowhere, defence and prosecution didn't expect that.

Prosecution picked up the accident line from his initial plea at the start of the case I think and then started asking what the accident was. They then all got an answer they were not expecting and the prosecution is now tying OP, and themselves, up in knots with the questions.

robinph

Tasden wrote: »

Whatever about anything else, that's hardly an indicator of guilt.

It's just an indication of the lawyers, from either side, doing their jobs properly.

sopretty

If you know what you did, you will have no problem replying with the truth. If your version of events is completely fabricated, then, YES, you'll have to think about what reply to give.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

The only bit that you need to believe is the first point about him not noticing that she had moved from the bed, everything else follows on as perfectly logical sequence of events to happen. He didn't think she was beside him, he was by then stood up and moving the fan in, he knew that she was in the bed. What is so hard to believe about him not noticing that she'd moved whilst he was doing something else in the dark room?

All of the other points you make are ones that may well have resulted in the shooting not happening, but they are in no way things that someone would definitely do in that situation. They are just things that he should have done.

His failure to do those things do not prove his guilt of murder, they just prove his idiocy.

The 'only' bit you have to believe is that a fella wakes up at night hearing a noise in the bathroom and doesn't check that it is his girlfriend by , I dunno, reaching out about 12 inches across the bed or maybe, just maybe, calling her name? Instead he has a great plan: "I'll blast four shots through the door, that's what most people would do."

I don't buy it and the formidable looking lady that is presiding judge will not be impressed either.

weldoninhio

seamus wrote: »

So what you're saying is that when someone is accused of a crime, we should assume that their story is a lie unless they can back it up with evidence? Guilty until proven innocent, awesome.

It leaves intent. Intent is what separates murder from manslaughter in the majority of jurisdictions. Keep in mind that nobody is trying to prove that OP shot her. That's beyond doubt. What's in question here is OP's intent at the time of the shooting.

Intent is very difficult to prove, but regardless of the case or the circumstances, you have to assume he is innocent of murder (i.e. he did not have murderous intent) and it is up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. His testimony is somewhat irrelevant in this regard - i.e. if the police had zero evidence of intent, then he would not even have to say anything - but in a case like this it would harm his defence to not provide his eyewitness testimony.

His intent was to kill whoever was in the bathroom. The type of bullets used don't just wound, they cause massive internal injuries. Firing them indiscriminately through a closed door, your only intent can be to kill. Whether he knew or not that it was Reeva, it's clear he intended to kill whoever was behind the door.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

The 'only' bit you have to believe is that a fella wakes up at night hearing a noise in the bathroom and doesn't check that it is his girlfriend by , I dunno, reaching out about 12 inches across the bed or maybe, just maybe, calling her name? Instead he has a great plan: "I'll blast four shots through the door, that's what most people would do."

I don't buy it and the formidable looking lady that is presiding judge will not be impressed either.

You've obviously missed large chunks of the testimony then.

They are both awake at 3am, they briefly chat, he gets up to move fans, doesn't notice her get out of bed as well, he hears noise in bathroom, tells her to keep quite and he goes to fetch his gun ... then I think you have the rest of the story from there.

sopretty

weldoninhio wrote: »

His intent was to kill whoever was in the bathroom. The type of bullets used don't just wound, they cause massive internal injuries. Firing them indiscriminately through a closed door, your only intent can be to kill. Whether he knew or not that it was Reeva, it's clear he intended to kill whoever was behind the door.

Yet, he says he never intended to shoot at anyone.