Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…4546485051…69

Comments

  • #2352
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Deise Vu wrote: »
    I wonder has OP seen the Ross Kemp documentary on SA prisons. About 10 minutes was all I could stomach. There was one particularly chilling sequence where some self styled prison 'boss' described how he liked to look into the eyes of his 'lovers' as he made love to them on a table in his cell. (And no he didn't use the term 'lovers' or 'make love'). Apparently the 'lover' weren't always terrible enthusiastic so he went on to describe how he brought them around to his way of thinking.

    If I was OP and there was CCTV evidence and the murder was witnessed by a couple of dozen nuns, Judges and policemen, I'd still be denying it (and whinging like a baby in self-pity all day long in the witness box).

    You make a good point!


  • #2353
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Was Reeva Steenkamp South African also?


  • #2354
    Deise Vu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭Deise Vu


    sopretty wrote: »
    Was Reeva Steenkamp South African also?


    Born in Cape Town.

    http://www.biography.com/people/reeva-steenkamp-21129547#awesm=~oBvTFuGmufXm8Z


  • #2355
    FunGoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 159 ✭✭FunGoose


    Deise Vu wrote: »
    I wonder has OP seen the Ross Kemp documentary on SA prisons. About 10 minutes was all I could stomach. There was one particularly chilling sequence where some self styled prison 'boss' described how he liked to look into the eyes of his 'lovers' as he made love to them on a table in his cell. (And no he didn't use the term 'lovers' or 'make love'). Apparently the 'lover' weren't always terrible enthusiastic so he went on to describe how he brought them around to his way of thinking.

    If I was OP and there was CCTV evidence and the murder was witnessed by a couple of dozen nuns, Judges and policemen, I'd still be denying it (and whinging like a baby in self-pity all day long in the witness box).

    It seems he mostly regrets it because of the trouble he's in. He certainly hasn't shown any genuine remorse.

    Perhaps he has seen the Ross Kemp doc! He'll be seeing it live soon.


  • #2356
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Deise Vu wrote: »
    Born in Cape Town.

    http://www.biography.com/people/reeva-steenkamp-21129547#awesm=~oBvTFuGmufXm8Z

    Wow, I see she had a law degree. Not just a pretty face then. :(


  • #2357
    Cushie Butterfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Cushie Butterfield


    FunGoose wrote: »
    My understanding is that the onus is on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt their version of events. Disproving OP's version isn't the same thing.

    Maybe this applies to the charges of Premeditated Murder and Murder but not Culpable Homicide? Is that when doubting OP's intent or credibility comes in to play?

    I think there is enough reasonable doubt to acquit OP of the Murder charge. If this happens he will face the charge of Culpable Homicide. Is this when the defendants version can be doubted and he can be convicted partly based on that as opposed to doubting the prosecutions version and not being able to convict based on that?

    Or did I misunderstand what you said and have now confused myself!?
    I think we're more or less saying the same thing!

    Nel has to establish & prove beyond all reasonable doubt intent to kill Reeva for a premeditated murder ruling.

    Nel has to prove intent beyond all reasonable doubt that OP went into the bathroom with the intention to shoot whoever was in the cubicle without first establishing the exact danger or perceived danger posed by them to him. If she has any reasonable doubt as regards this she can't find him guilty.

    Even if M'Lady finds that Nel hasn't established beyond doubt either of the above, but believes that OP felt he was in imminent danger & that he fired shots by accident because he was startled or terrified by a noise from behind the door she can find him not guilty of the murder charge. His intention would have been not to shoot but to shoot should he be attacked. She has to believe that he made an honest mistake & that he was not negligent.

    If she finds that his negligence caused or contributed to the 'accident' she can find him guilty of culpable homicide & decide how long a sentence (if any) he should serve. If she feels he wasn't negligent in any way she can find not guilty on the murder charge.I'm assuming that it was always the case that he'd be found guilty of culpable homicide. It now remains to be seen how she feels about how he did during Nel's cross examination & if he did enough to prove intent.

    The doubt & credibility go hand in hand - lack of credibility creates the doubt & this applies to OP & the witnesses. It will boil down to intent & (degree of) negligence, but either way I assume he'll be doing time or at least sentenced to it.

    Edited to add: If she finds that his version(s) is just too contradictory/incredible to believe, then she has the option to disregard all his evidence as being incredible, & to accept Nel's evidence as being the true or more credible version in which case she has no choice but to find him guilty of at least the middle finding of murder (15 years) or possibly premeditated murder (min 25 years).

    Again I can only assume that Roux is confident that this won't happen & advised against changing the plea to guilty of culpable homicide when he had the chance, or that OP refused his advice to change the plea.


  • #2358
    FunGoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 159 ✭✭FunGoose


    Cushie Butterfield wrote: »
    I think we're more or less saying the same thing!

    Nel has to establish & prove beyond all reasonable doubt intent to kill Reeva for a premeditated murder ruling.

    Nel has to prove intent beyond all reasonable doubt that OP went into the bathroom with the intention to shoot whoever was in the cubicle without first establishing the exact danger or perceived danger posed by them to him. If she has any reasonable doubt as regards this she can't find him guilty.

    Even if M'Lady finds that Nel hasn't established beyond doubt either of the above, but believes that OP felt he was in imminent danger & that he fired shots by accident because he was startled or terrified by a noise from behind the door she can find him not guilty of the murder charge. His intention would have been not to shoot but to shoot should he be attacked. She has to believe that he made an honest mistake & that he was not negligent.

    If she finds that his negligence caused or contributed to the 'accident' she can find him guilty of culpable homicide & decide how long a sentence (if any) he should serve. If she feels he wasn't negligent in any way she can find not guilty on the murder charge.I'm assuming that it was always the case that he'd be found guilty of culpable homicide. It now remains to be seen how she feels about how he did during Nel's cross examination & if he did enough to prove intent.

    The doubt & credibility go hand in hand - lack of credibility creates the doubt & this applies to OP & the witnesses. It will boil down to intent & (degree of) negligence, but either way I assume he'll be doing time or at least sentenced to it.

    Yes we are saying the same thing. Thanks for the clear explanation.

    I think he'll be found guilty of the lesser charge of Culpable Homicide even if M'Lady believes most of his unlikely version. He was negligent by shooting at a closed toilet door without even being able to perceive if he and Reeva were in danger and I don't think his 'accidental' discharging of the firearm is a good enough defence against being negligent.

    That would make him guilty of unlawful killing due to negligence and the higher the degree of negligence decided by M'Lady the more time he gets.

    Also, the two lesser charges of discharging firearms and the illegal ammunition charge are not the least of his worries I don't think. The shot fired in the restaurant could get him five years, the firing out the sunroof could also get him five years and the possession of illegal ammunition could get him 15 years!

    He has to get done for at least the possession of illegal ammo, how can he possibly get away with that?

    Having said all that who knows what M'Lady is thinking!


  • #2359
    FunGoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 159 ✭✭FunGoose


    Cushie Butterfield wrote: »
    Edited to add: If she finds that his version(s) is just too contradictory/incredible to believe, then she has the option to disregard all his evidence as being incredible, & to accept Nel's evidence as being the true or more credible version in which case she has no choice but to find him guilty of at least the middle finding of murder (15 years) or possibly premeditated murder (min 25 years).

    Again I can only assume that Roux is confident that this won't happen & advised against changing the plea to guilty of culpable homicide when he had the chance, or that OP refused his advice to change the plea.

    I didn't know that about the evidence! That's a very possible outcome. He might not get away with Murder then.

    Roux must be very confident that OP has a lot to gain by pleading not guilty to everything. The only possible way he can be acquitted of all charges is by denying everything. Any guilty plea will definitely get him jail time. Roux must think that zero time is a possibility. It's a big gamble!


  • #2360
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    FunGoose wrote: »

    Having said all that who knows what M'Lady is thinking!

    And that is the million dollar question!!!!


  • #2361
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    FunGoose wrote: »
    I didn't know that about the evidence! That's a very possible outcome. He might not get away with Murder then.

    Roux must be very confident that OP has a lot to gain by pleading not guilty to everything. The only possible way he can be acquitted of all charges is by denying everything. Any guilty plea will definitely get him jail time. Roux must think that zero time is a possibility. It's a big gamble!

    OP strikes me as someone who would be arrogant enough to disregard legal advice. I don't think Roux could be in anyway convinced of Pistorius getting off all charges. It would seriously affect his reputation to give dodgy legal advice you'd imagine? I'd say Pistorius just said that he was not changing his plea. End of. Pure speculation on my part obviously but sure......

    Saw an amusing tweet along the lines of Roux expressing a desire to murder his client lol.


  • Advertisement
  • #2362
    FunGoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 159 ✭✭FunGoose


    sopretty wrote: »
    And that is the million dollar question!!!!

    I'd call it the hundred dollar question, the million dollar question being what were Oscar's thoughts leading up to his 'mistake'!!? If the court could somehow find that out I think M'Lady would be 100% sure regarding intent!


  • #2363
    Cushie Butterfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Cushie Butterfield


    FunGoose wrote:
    I didn't know that about the evidence! That's a very possible outcome. He might not get away with Murder then.

    Roux must be very confident that OP has a lot to gain by pleading not guilty to everything. The only possible way he can be acquitted of all charges is by denying everything. Any guilty plea will definitely get him jail time. Roux must think that zero time is a possibility. It's a big gamble!
    A huge gamble! Of course we don't know whether or not Roux had put the feelers out at some stage behind the scenes to see if Nel would accept the plea (or even if that's something they do in RSA) & if he flat out refused.

    Maybe Nel feels he has done enough to secure murder or premeditated. A plea would usually only be accepted by a state prosecutor if they weren't all that confident that they wouldn't get at least that or more anyway, so he would have nothing to gain I suppose. There's also the matter of the mandatory jailtime for one versus M'Lady's discretion for the other.

    I don't know if the firearm charges would have be dropped as a result of the plea, but at this stage he's really playing with fire.

    Whatever about discrediting the witnesses for shooting in the restaurant & out the sunroof it doesn't look good that his father refused to confirm that his ammo was in OP's safe & no new evidence is allowed to be produced. Maybe Roux has an ace up his sleeve as regards those charges, but that is highly unlikely.


  • #2364
    FunGoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 159 ✭✭FunGoose


    sopretty wrote: »
    OP strikes me as someone who would be arrogant enough to disregard legal advice. I don't think Roux could be in anyway convinced of Pistorius getting off all charges. It would seriously affect his reputation to give dodgy legal advice you'd imagine? I'd say Pistorius just said that he was not changing his plea. End of. Pure speculation on my part obviously but sure......

    Saw an amusing tweet along the lines of Roux expressing a desire to murder his client lol.

    I agree that OP would be that arrogant but could he be that stupid? Stupid enough to disregard his legal teams expert opinion/advice and not be talked around? Actually maybe.

    I'm obviously just speculating too but I do think Roux and OP made the decision very early on to use this deny strategy and stick to it. I mean is OP any better or worse off now than if he had admitted to any criminal wrong doing at any stage of the trial?

    We'll have to wait for the books to be published to find this kind of stuff out!


  • #2365
    Cushie Butterfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Cushie Butterfield


    FunGoose wrote: »
    I agree that OP would be that arrogant but could he be that stupid? Stupid enough to disregard his legal teams expert opinion/advice and not be talked around? Actually maybe.

    I'm obviously just speculating too but I do think Roux and OP made the decision very early on to use this deny strategy and stick to it. I mean is OP any better or worse off now than if he had admitted to any criminal wrong doing at any stage of the trial?

    We'll have to wait for the books to be published to find this kind of stuff out!
    I'd say he is stupid enough. He's more than likely petrified of doing prison time & is prepared to go all the way to the wire until the inevitable happens.


  • #2366
    Merkin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,230 ✭✭✭Merkin


    https://twitter.com/SmithInAfrica


  • #2367
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    No live coverage today it seems?


  • #2368
    cowlove
    Registered Users Posts: 281 ✭✭cowlove


    Is it possible that instead of firing the gun first OP hit the door with the cricket bat?

    That would then tie in with the neighbours saying they heard shots then her scream.

    If they are saying the cricket bat sounds like shots perhaps they were argueing, he hit the door with the cricket bat in anger, she screams then he fires gun?


  • #2369
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    I can't imagine the sound of a cricket bat travelling the same distance as a gunshot would.


  • #2370
    cowlove
    Registered Users Posts: 281 ✭✭cowlove


    Taken from this twitter account

    https://twitter.com/SmithInAfrica

    Roux plays recording of bat hitting door at 60 metres again. Many commentators said yesterday it does sound like gunshots.


  • Advertisement
  • #2371
    Cushie Butterfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Cushie Butterfield


    sopretty wrote: »
    No live coverage today it seems?
    There is (on the telegraph site) Mr Dixon has been crossexamined by Roux & Nel is doing him now - all technical stuff about testing etc


  • #2372
    desbrook
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,847 ✭✭✭desbrook


    cowlove wrote: »
    Is it possible that instead of firing the gun first OP hit the door with the cricket bat?

    That would then tie in with the neighbours saying they heard shots then her scream.

    If they are saying the cricket bat sound. like shots perhaps they were argueing, he hit the door with the cricket bat in anger, she screams then he fires gun?

    No - very credible evidence yesterday showed that two of the cracks caused by the bat stopped dead when they met bullet holes in the door. This clearly showed the holes existed before the cracks were created. Hope my explanation makes sense .


  • #2373
    cowlove
    Registered Users Posts: 281 ✭✭cowlove


    desbrook wrote: »
    No - very credible evidence yesterday showed that two of the cracks caused by the bat stopped dead when they met bullet holes in the door. This clearly showed the holes existed before the cracks were created. Hope my explanation makes sense .


    Yeah, makes perfect sense. I was just throwing stuff out there. I have not been able to follow all of the trial.


  • #2374
    Worksforyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Worksforyou


    What's the general concensus? He'll be found guilty or not? Haven't been following.


  • #2375
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Cushie Butterfield wrote: »
    There is (on the telegraph site) Mr Dixon has been crossexamined by Roux & Nel is doing him now - all technical stuff about testing etc

    Would you mind posting a link? I can't find a website for some reason. :confused:


  • #2376
    The Caveman
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭The Caveman


    sopretty wrote: »
    Would you mind posting a link? I can't find a website for some reason. :confused:

    also on BBC main page


  • Advertisement
  • #2377
    Cushie Butterfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Cushie Butterfield


    sopretty wrote: »
    Would you mind posting a link? I can't find a website for some reason. :confused:
    Sorry I should have in my post: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10668819/Watch-live-Oscar-Pistorius-murder-trial.html


  • #2378
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    The Caveman wrote: »
    also on BBC main page

    D'internetz is not complying with me today lol. It's saying on the bbc page, 'No related video', then there's a message that some live coverage is not available for legal reasons. This is the website I'm looking at?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26985342


  • #2379
    Muff Richardson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭Muff Richardson


    Jesus, they are really scraping the barrel with this "expert", in geology as it happens. He's apologising for being vague/talking through his hole


  • #2380
    The Caveman
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭The Caveman


    sopretty wrote: »
    D'internetz is not complying with me today lol. It's saying on the bbc page, 'No related video', then there's a message that some live coverage is not available for legal reasons. This is the website I'm looking at?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26985342

    yes, i am in Dublin, and can see it with no problem. They are on a break now...

    below wink is best source - please note, it will show unedited footage

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-live-here-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-april-16th/


  • #2381
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    Worksforyou wrote: »
    What's the general concensus? He'll be found guilty or not? Haven't been following.

    If he isn't found guilty, then you'd have to wonder how anyone, anywhere ever got done for murder without having done the deed in front of a camera or a crowd.


  • Advertisement
  • #2382
    Worksforyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Worksforyou


    Tin Foil Hat wrote: »
    If he isn't found guilty, then you'd have to wonder how anyone, anywhere ever got done for murder without having done the deed in front of a camera or a crowd.

    OJ.


  • #2383
    The Caveman
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭The Caveman


    i am starting to really like this Nell guy...

    better than a John Grisham novel...


  • #2384
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Does the fella sitting to the left of Nel remind anyone else of somebody famous? :)


  • #2385
    sham69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭sham69


    sopretty wrote: »
    Does the fella sitting to the left of Nel remind anyone else of somebody famous? :)


    Raymond Reddington from the Blacklist (James Spader..):D


  • #2386
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    sham69 wrote: »
    Raymond Reddington from the Blacklist (James Spader..):D

    I can't figure out who he reminds me of - but he's the spitting image of someone!!! I was starting to wonder whether it was Ricki Gervais he reminded me of, but I don't think it is either. It's doing my head in trying to put a name to whoever it is!!!


  • #2387
    Cushie Butterfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Cushie Butterfield


    sopretty wrote: »
    I can't figure out who he reminds me of - but he's the spitting image of someone!!! I was starting to wonder whether it was Ricki Gervais he reminded me of, but I don't think it is either. It's doing my head in trying to put a name to whoever it is!!!
    Nigel Pivaro?
    http://i1.cdnds.net/12/05/300x225/soaps_corrie_nigel_pivaro.jpg


  • #2388
    sham69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭sham69


    [URL="http://tvisafoodgroup.com/2014/01/20/what-to-watch-jan-20-26/[/URL]


    Thats if we are talking about the same guy...


  • #2389
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    That could be him alright!


  • #2390
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Why is Nel focusing so much on the bullets? Does it serve the prosecution in some way, or is he trying to discredit Dixon still?


  • #2391
    Cushie Butterfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Cushie Butterfield


    sopretty wrote: »
    Why is Nel focusing so much on the bullets? Does it serve the prosecution in some way, or is he trying to discredit Dixon still?
    Looks like he's trying to tear him to pieces discredit him as an expert of any sort.


  • Advertisement
  • #2392
    sham69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭sham69


    he's rattling him alright...


  • #2393
    sham69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭sham69


    Seems stange that a lot of Dixon's evidence is based on a photo not on him examining the door or body himself?


  • #2394
    sham69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭sham69


    sopretty wrote: »
    I can't figure out who he reminds me of - but he's the spitting image of someone!!! I was starting to wonder whether it was Ricki Gervais he reminded me of, but I don't think it is either. It's doing my head in trying to put a name to whoever it is!!!



    Ah I was talking about the guy with Roux, his right hand man.

    Just noticed the other guy with the black hair, sorry I'm confusing you :D


  • #2395
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Roux's preparation for this case is not coming out as being remotely sufficient at all. I don't know what he was at! OP said he didn't meet his legal team often, due to depression or something. I wonder would that account for the shambles? It seems that OP didn't know what Roux was doing and Roux didn't really know what OP was thinking/going to say. If it were me, I certainly wouldn't be booking Roux to defend me!!! This Dixon guy seems to be a jack of all trades, master of none.


  • #2396
    Cushie Butterfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Cushie Butterfield


    sham69 wrote: »
    Seems stange that a lot of Dixon's evidence is based on a photo not on him examining the door or body himself?
    I'm presuming that he didn't have access to the body & had to rely on photos & various medical reports. I don't know if he had access to the door or the bat, or whether he used identical ones.


  • #2397
    Cushie Butterfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Cushie Butterfield


    sopretty wrote: »
    Roux's preparation for this case is not coming out as being remotely sufficient at all. I don't know what he was at! OP said he didn't meet his legal team often, due to depression or something. I wonder would that account for the shambles? It seems that OP didn't know what Roux was doing and Roux didn't really know what OP was thinking/going to say. If it were me, I certainly wouldn't be booking Roux to defend me!!! This Dixon guy seems to be a jack of all trades, master of none.
    I thought the same during OP's cross exam. Didn't he something to the effect that he didn't feel able to look at any of the photos of the body, so didn't really get involved with that end of things, bar tell them what happened?


  • #2398
    sham69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭sham69


    Yeah I would much rather have Nel on my side than Roux thats for sure..


  • #2399
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Cushie Butterfield wrote: »
    I thought the same during OP's cross exam. Didn't he something to the effect that he didn't feel able to look at any of the photos of the body, so didn't really get involved with that end of things, bar tell them what happened?

    I feel it's a good example of a client refusing to listen to their legal team! I'd say either Roux was left to proceed in the dark almost, without much input from OP, or else Roux didn't consult sufficiently with his client.

    Why on earth didn't he get credible expert witnesses though? Maybe he couldn't find anyone who was willing to testify in defence?

    Pure and utter gratuitous speculation on my part again!!!! :o


  • #2400
    Mr Freeze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,618 ✭✭✭Mr Freeze


    I wonder if all the "expert" witnesses will be an inept as this Dixon fella.

    He has done the defence no favours.
    AlexCrawfordSky Alex Crawford
    #oscartrial Nel looks back at his team of experts and smiles (is that a head shake?) as Dixon gives another huge long explanation


  • Advertisement
  • #2401
    The Caveman
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭The Caveman


    this Dixon is now starting to look bad...


Advertisement