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

Deise Vu

Tigger wrote: »

what case was this?

Can you libel someone convicted of manslaughter by calling them a murderer? I will plead the fifth on this one. It was very very high profile. The man was convicted of manslaughter because he initially shoved his 20-stone wife causing the bizarre sequence of events where she kept falling down and getting up and smashing her head in between.

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

It's incredibly stupid to not confirm before reaching for a gun, but not beyond the realms of possibility that he could have just assumed she was still in the bed .

But to you it is beyond the realms of possibility that they had a fight, he went bull mad and shot her, like the countless other examples of domestic abuse?

aidan24326

robinph wrote: »

For him to have invented that story on the spot to fit the scene gives him far more credit than he is due. The simplest scenario is just that he's telling the truth. He's an idiot, but the simplest version is that it happened as he said.

Fair enough, what you've outlined isn't a totally implausible scenario, up to a point, but there's one point at which it still falls apart. The point where he arrives outside the bathroom door.

Surely if you think there's an intruder in there you'd say something, shout at them, warn that you're going to fire if they don't identify themselves? That would have been enough for Reeva to immediately say something/scream/do anything that would have made him realise it was her.

Also, her being in the bathroom in the dark points to her having fled there amidst a bust-up, possibly under threat from an increasingly agitated Oscar. Cowering in the dark rather than innocently going for a pee (who pees in the pitch dark?).

whatstherush

aidan24326 wrote: »

Surely if you think there's an intruder in there you'd say something, shout at them, warn that you're going to fire if they don't identify themselves? That would have been enough for Reeva to immediately say something/scream/do anything that would have made him realise it was her.

He actually did scream a second time in the bathroom according to his testimony, but on Reeva hearing this much louder scream ( based on proximity ) she decided to say nothing and proceeded to open the door of the toilet. And according to Oscar she did the exact opposite when he first screamed out after getting his gun, i.e. went into the toilet and again said nothing.

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

But to you it is beyond the realms of possibility that they had a fight, he went bull mad and shot her, like the countless other examples of domestic abuse?

Nope, that is possible. But I'm not seeing the evidence to back that potential version of events up.

That there are countless other examples of domestic abuse does not count as evidence against him.

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

Nope, that is possible. But I'm not seeing the evidence to back that potential version of events up.

Again how do you know what evidence a fight between them produces?

robinph wrote: »

That there are countless other examples of domestic abuse does not count as evidence against him.

I never said it was, it was just to highlight that you find the common act of domestic abuse "far stranger" then his story.

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

Again how do you know what evidence a fight between them produces?

I don't, but there wasn't anything out of the ordinary in the room to suggest a fight, so why jump to the conclusion that it must have been a fight?

whatstherush wrote: »

I never said it was, it was just to highlight that you find the common act of domestic abuse "far stranger" then his story.

So completely irrelevant and just trying to divert from the actual evidence of the case by bringing it up.
Has there been a history of domestic abuse or violence from him? No.
Has there been a history of him going nuts when hearing the washing machine turn on and reaching for the gun in the middle of the night? Yes.
Now which would be the stranger thing for him to do? Shoot the girlfriend in the middle of the night during an argument, or hear a noise and go a bit nuts with the gun?

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

I don't, but there wasn't anything out of the ordinary in the room to suggest a fight, so why jump to the conclusion that it must have been a fight?

So you don't know what evidence a fight would produce yet you can safely say there was nothing out of the ordinary to suggest a fight.

robinph wrote: »

So completely irrelevant and just trying to divert from the actual evidence of the case by bringing it up.

It perfectly relevant to bring it up in relation to your contention that a common event is stranger then his story.

robinph wrote: »

Has there been a history of domestic abuse or violence from him? No.
Has there been a history of him going nuts when hearing the washing machine turn on and reaching for the gun in the middle of the night? Yes
Now which would be the stranger thing for him to do? Shoot the girlfriend in the middle of the night during an argument, or hear a noise and go a bit nuts with the gun?

For him and Reeva to acted the way he describes is far stranger, then him, to borrow your term, go a bit nuts after a fight and shot her dead. It happens every day in some form or another.

AudreyHepburn

Deise Vu wrote: »

I am fully aware how the law works but we are talking about a case where the victim is in a locked apartment in a secure compound and the perpetrator is holding the gun that fired three hollow points into her and he admits he did it. There is nothing for the prosecution to prove, absolutely nothing. It is up to OP to come up with a plausible explanation as to how this could have happened innocently. He has failed abysmally to do so.

But it's not, that's the point.

Obviously he will want to make his story as plausible as possible, that goes without saying.

But it falls on the prosecution to disprove him and place enough doubt in the Judge's mind that she finds him guilty of murder.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

I don't, but there wasn't anything out of the ordinary in the room to suggest a fight, so why jump to the conclusion that it must have been a fight?



So completely irrelevant and just trying to divert from the actual evidence of the case by bringing it up.
Has there been a history of domestic abuse or violence from him? No.
Has there been a history of him going nuts when hearing the washing machine turn on and reaching for the gun in the middle of the night? Yes.
Now which would be the stranger thing for him to do? Shoot the girlfriend in the middle of the night during an argument, or hear a noise and go a bit nuts with the gun?

I don't know why I am wasting valuable internet ink replying to this but in each case where he went into 'full commando recon mode' the girlfriend of the time confirmed that he first woke her up and, in another case, the male friend confirmed that he showed up with his gun and asked the friend was he OK.

No washing machines were harmed during these exercises. The only thing they prove is that OP was prepared to arm himself and INVESTIGATE any sounds that alarmed him. And for the last bloody time, if you are in a locked alarmed room, with a cricket bat jammed under the door, in a secure compound with your girlfriend and you hear movement in the bathroom, you check where your girlfriend is in case she might be harmed. You turn on the lights. You call the police. You find your girlfriend and get out. You do not declare war on the bathroom door.

Deise Vu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But it's not, that's the point.

Obviously he will want to make his story as plausible as possible, that goes without saying.

But it falls on the prosecution to disprove him and place enough doubt in the Judge's mind that she finds him guilty of murder.

See my last post (and dozens of others). It is up to a jury to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator committed the crime of which he is accused not to award points for a good story. If the evidence heard confirms the perp shot someone 3 times in a locked apartment and admits he did it, the only other relevant evidence is whether or not there is a plausible explanation other than murder for this occurrence.

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

So you don't know what evidence a fight would produce yet you can safely say there was nothing out of the ordinary to suggest a fight.

I can safely say that there wasn't anything to suggest a fight because, well there wasn't. If there is then the prosecution has really dropped the ball big time by not bringing it up.
The only thing to suggest a fight is the prosecution suggesting a fight. They have no evidence and they admitted it in their opening statement at the beginning of the trial.

whatstherush wrote: »

It perfectly relevant to bring it up in relation to your contention that a common event is stranger then his story.

There will be far more incidences of someone going to the loo during the night without their partner noticing than incidents of domestic abuse.

whatstherush wrote: »

For him and Reeva to acted the way he describes is far stranger, then him, to borrow your term, go a bit nuts after a fight and shot her dead. It happens every day in some form or another.

There isn't anything in his version of events that is not plausible. There is a lot of stupid, in that he reached for a gun and that he shot at the door whilst not being certain who was behind it or where Reeva was (although he was certain where Reeva was, unfortunately he was wrong).
Again, just because there are other incidents of domestic violence does not meant this is.

AudreyHepburn

Kunkka wrote: »

The thing is Robin I was in your camp prior to the trial and thought it could be just down to stupidity ignoring the logic as I know how violent SA can be but after seeing most of the trial I am convinced he murdered her after an argument. You're entitled to your opinion and that's why we have forums to discuss things like this! I just don't know how you or anyone haven't done a U-Turn on your opinion after that evidence.

I suppose it comes down to whether you think the evidence is solid for a murder conviction and to me it just isn't.

Certainly he was stupid and reckless and should never be let anywhere near any kind of lethal weapon again.

But for me none of the evidence so far fits a premidated crime.

An interest in guns, paranoia over intruders in your home, a thrill seeking reckless personality, four emails/text in thousand that were argumentative in nature, eye witness accounts of the relationship and Pistorius character, for which we have no real back up evidence, confused witness accounts relating to an argument that night - none of these point to premediation or murder to me.

I still lean towards it being a tragic accident, though I can also see an argument for it having happened as a result of a fit of rage.

check_six

robinph wrote: »

I don't, but there wasn't anything out of the ordinary in the room to suggest a fight, so why jump to the conclusion that it must have been a fight?

Well, the dead lady, and the bullet holes do tend to strongly point towards some kind of dispute.

robinph wrote: »

Has there been a history of domestic abuse or violence from him? No.

I feel uncomfortable when someone downplays an act by saying the perpetrator had not done it before, or that it was out of character, or that they come from a good family. It sort of suggests that the first time round is a freebie. It might work for minor infractions, but it certainly doesn't extend to bullet riddled corpses. You shouldn't get an opportunity to build up a track record of shooting people.

A lot of discussion has centred on what Pistorius said he did and people taking it at face value; the lights were off, he thought he talked to an occupied bed, etc. He is not a reliable witness and his story should be treated with caution.

People want magical CSI style forensic evidence of every act that took place that night. You can't replay an argument based on ripples in the wallpaper, you can't tell if the lights were on or off, you can't tell what sounds were heard. All you have is a dead lady and a story from the one person who is profoundly interested in making sure they are not to blame for anything.

Muff Richardson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But it falls on the prosecution to disprove him and place enough doubt in the Judge's mind that she finds him guilty of murder.

They've done that, and some more. You are lost in a haze of totally unreasonable doubt, gullibility and delusion... That said It still wouldn't surprise me if this mad man is gonna walk

pH

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I still lean towards it being a tragic accident, though I can also see an argument for it having happened as a result of a fit of rage.

I'm sorry, but let's say I intend to kill person A, but mistakenly shoot person B instead, then in your head that's a no big deal and I'm not guilty of premeditated murder, it's a "tragic accident" and I should get a slap on the wrist.

Even if you believe his nonsensical story - he fired four bullets into a locked door behind which he believed there was a person. SA law does not allow you kill someone to protect your property, only if your life was in danger. Clearly given that there could not have been any threats from this non-existent intruder, and there was a locked door between them and OP, his life was not in danger at the time he shot.

I don't for one second believe his story, but even if you do he's still guilty of murder and needs to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

robinph

pH wrote: »

I'm sorry, but let's say I intend to kill person A, but mistakenly shoot person B instead, then in your head that's a no big deal and I'm not guilty of premeditated murder, it's a "tragic accident" and I should get a slap on the wrist.

Nope, that would make it murder and the associated sentence to go with that which I suspect is somewhat more than a slap on the wrist.

AudreyHepburn

pH wrote: »

I'm sorry, but let's say I intend to kill person A, but mistakenly shoot person B instead, then in your head that's a no big deal and I'm not guilty of premeditated murder, it's a "tragic accident" and I should get a slap on the wrist.

Even if you believe his nonsensical story - he fired four bullets into a locked door behind which he believed there was a person. SA law does not allow you kill someone to protect your property, only if your life was in danger. Clearly given that there could not have been any threats from this non-existent intruder, and there was a locked door between them and OP, his life was not in danger at the time he shot.

I don't for one second believe his story, but even if you do he's still guilty of murder and needs to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

When or where have I ever said he shouldn't be punished? Of course he should, he did a stupid impulsive reckless thing and took a woman's life. Of course he should be punished.

AudreyHepburn

Muff Richardson wrote: »

They've done that, and some more. You are lost in a haze of totally unreasonable doubt, gullibility and delusion... That said It still wouldn't surprise me if this mad man is gonna walk

I'm not unreasonable, nor gullible, nor delusional and I take offence to the suggestion that I am.

I have followed the case from the beginning as well as the trial itself and fall I see is circumstantial evidence against Pistorius, nothing concrete. And to be the prosecution have admitted themselves that's all they have.

All I am saying is that for me there is nothing adding up to cold blooded, premeditated murder. I don't preclude the possibility that he might have done it in a fit of rage but I'm still inclined to believe his story.

Deise Vu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not unreasonable, nor gullible, nor delusional and I take offence to the suggestion that I am.

I have followed the case from the beginning as well as the trial itself and fall I see is circumstantial evidence against Pistorius, nothing concrete. And to be the prosecution have admitted themselves that's all they have.

All I am saying is that for me there is nothing adding up to cold blooded, premeditated murder. I don't preclude the possibility that he might have done it in a fit of rage but I'm still inclined to believe his story.

He was found carrying the dead body of his girlfriend into whom he had shot three hollow point bullets. It was his gun, his bullets and it happened in a locked apartment with no-one else present. He admits he did it. As circumstantial evidence goes I would consider that rather compelling.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. OP's 'evidence' fits the circumstances to give a highly unlikely and implausible reason why he might have innocently blown his girlfriend's head off. That is the only circumstantial evidence in this case.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

He was found carrying the dead body of his girlfriend into whom he had shot three hollow point bullets. It was his gun, his bullets and it happened in a locked apartment with no-one else present. He admits he did it. As circumstantial evidence goes I would consider that rather compelling.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. OP's 'evidence' fits the circumstances to give a highly unlikely and implausible reason why he might have innocently blown his girlfriend's head off. That is the only circumstantial evidence in this case.

That is not the circumstantial evidence at all and it seems to be you that has the wrong end of the stick and does not understand the points being argued, or what circumstantial evidence is. Those are the actual facts of the case and nobody is disputing them.

The prosecution says they had a fight, and the circumstantial evidence is some vague witness statements from people in the next estate over.

pH

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

When or where have I ever said he shouldn't be punished? Of course he should, he did a stupid impulsive reckless thing and took a woman's life. Of course he should be punished.

well you described it as "a tragic accident" and in general when things happen that can be shown to be "accidents" we don't punish those who caused them - well not in a retributive way.

robinph

pH wrote: »

well you described it as "a tragic accident" and in general when things happen that can be shown to be "accidents" we don't punish those who caused them - well not in a retributive way.

Yes we do, people are charged for driving accidents and imprisoned/ fined/ banned. Not as often as they should be, but it happens very often. Employers are charged with accidents in the work place...

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

That is not the circumstantial evidence at all and it seems to be you that has the wrong end of the stick and does not understand the points being argued, or what circumstantial evidence is. Those are the actual facts of the case and nobody is disputing them.

The prosecution says they had a fight, and the circumstantial evidence is some vague witness statements from people in the next estate over.

Sorry but you clearly do not understand circumstantial evidence from your last few posts. All the hard evidence points to OP being the killer including his own admission. The circumstantial evidence is OP's 'innocent' account of events. The prosecution have proved he is lying. They have witnesses who said there was a row, witnesses who said the lights were on, OP has changed his story and introduced a late defence of 'accidentally' firing his gun . Four times!! There is nothing more any prosecution can do short of CCTV footage or a confession.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

Sorry but you clearly do not understand circumstantial evidence from your last few posts. All the hard evidence points to OP being the killer including his own admission. The circumstantial evidence is OP's 'innocent' account of events. The prosecution have proved he is lying. They have witnesses who said there was a row, witnesses who said the lights were on, OP has changed his story and introduced a late defence of 'accidentally' firing his gun . Four times!! There is nothing more any prosecution can do short of CCTV footage or a confession.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=circumstantial%20evidence

Noun

S: (n) circumstantial evidence, indirect evidence (evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute)

Such as witnesses claiming to have heard an argument.

However, you claimed this to be circumstantial:

Deise Vu wrote:

He was found carrying the dead body of his girlfriend into whom he had shot three hollow point bullets. It was his gun, his bullets and it happened in a locked apartment with no-one else present. He admits he did it. As circumstantial evidence goes I would consider that rather compelling.

That he shot her through a door proves only that he shot her through a door. There is no possibility of being able to claim intent from any of that physical evidence that existed.

The intent of his actions is claimed based on the prosecution witnesses saying they heard a fight. That is the circumstantial evidence.

BQQ

robinph wrote: »

The intent of his actions is claimed based on the prosecution witnesses saying they heard a fight. That is the circumstantial evidence.

Correct.

However, there can be no direct evidence of intent (short of a confession).
There can only be circumstantial evidence like witness statements and that evidence can be used to convict.

BQQ

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

all I see is circumstantial evidence against Pistorius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=circumstantial%20evidence


Such as witnesses claiming to have heard an argument.

However, you claimed this to be circumstantial:


That he shot her through a door proves only that he shot her through a door. There is no possibility of being able to claim intent from any of that physical evidence that existed.

The intent of his actions is claimed based on the prosecution witnesses saying they heard a fight. That is the circumstantial evidence.

To suit OP's cock and bull story he says it was all lovely dovey between him and Reeva. His current story is that the lights were off. Independant witnesses say the lights were on and there were loud sounds of arguments. There is nothing circumstantial about that, it proves OP is lying.

AudreyHepburn

Deise Vu wrote: »

He was found carrying the dead body of his girlfriend into whom he had shot three hollow point bullets. It was his gun, his bullets and it happened in a locked apartment with no-one else present. He admits he did it. As circumstantial evidence goes I would consider that rather compelling.

This only speaks to the fact that he shot her, something which he has never denied.

It says nothing whatsoever about his intent or who he thought was behind the door.

Simply being present at the time does not prove anything. My father was there when my grandfather died, it doesn't mean he murdered him.

Dubl07

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

This only speaks to the fact that he shot her, something which he has never denied.

It says nothing whatsoever about his intent or who he thought was behind the door.

Simply being present at the time does not prove anything. My father was there when my grandfather died, it doesn't mean he murdered him.

Was your grandfather shot three times with hollow-point bullets when the only other person present was your father? If not, that's a nonsensical argument.

Deise Vu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

This only speaks to the fact that he shot her, something which he has never denied.

It says nothing whatsoever about his intent or who he thought was behind the door.

Simply being present at the time does not prove anything. My father was there when my grandfather died, it doesn't mean he murdered him.

Did your Grandfather have three bullet holes in him and was your father holding a gun?

NipNip

Where is Roux gone? Who's the other dude?

Merkin

Anyone following this today? I wonder if he did say something? I am suspecting yes considering his version of the truth seems to differ greatly from others:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/oscar-pistorius-trial-murder-reeva-steenkamp-6-may

gramar

It's certainly been wridely reported that he asked her how she could sleep at night.
There are a few witnesses who all seem to be in agreement about that.

The simple answer is that she probably sleeps a hell of a lot better than he does.

Muff Richardson

gramar wrote: »

It's certainly been wridely reported that he asked her how she could sleep at night.
There are a few witnesses who all seem to be in agreement about that.

A police officer witnessed him saying it. OP's stupidity holds no bounds it seems :eek: I'd say roux has raw cheeks by now from face palming. I mean it wouldn't even dawn on you to advise your client not to verbally intimidate a member of the deceased group in the court room during the trial you are accused of murdering, wtf!? You couldn't make it up... oh no wait, actually you could. He's nuts and thick as two planks, bad combo.

NipNip

No surprises that he's denying it. Perhaps the words came out accidentally?

NipNip

Incidentally - does anyone know what beef he has with her?

Dubl07

NipNip wrote: »

Incidentally - does anyone know what beef he has with her?

She was one of Reeva's best friends, Reeva was living with the Myers family and there are still Myers family members on the PS witness list for rebuttal.

Jesus Wept

All this OP stuff, I keep thinking everyone is having a go at Xavi.

Dubl07

Innocent person in jail, no death penalty and appeal, stressed, miserable.

Or

Guilty person on the streets free to re-offend by taking more lives.


Choose.

bajer101

Dubl07 wrote: »

Innocent person in jail, no death penalty and appeal, stressed, miserable.

Or

Guilty person on the streets free to re-offend by taking more lives.


Choose.

WTF are you talking about? When you hit your thirties and can form a coherent argument, then go for it. Until then, keep your nonsense teenage juvenile opinions to yourself.

robinph

Dubl07 wrote: »

Innocent person in jail, no death penalty and appeal, stressed, miserable.

Or

Guilty person on the streets free to re-offend by taking more lives.


Choose.

They already decided on that last year and released him at the bail hearing due to not being an ongoing danger to society or a flight risk.

brimal

Another facepalm moment for Roux and Co. - Their own defence expert Mr Wolmorans has just said defence's story re: magazine rack is wrong.

Wolmorons is an interesting character, seems to be a bit loose with his words and doesn't seem to be sticking too closely to defence's version of events.

NipNip

brimal wrote: »

Another facepalm moment for Roux and Co. - Their own defence expert Mr Wolmorans has just said defence's story re: magazine rack is wrong.

Wolmorons is an interesting character, seems to be a bit loose with his words and doesn't seem to be sticking too closely to defence's version of events.

Didn't see it this morning. Is Wolmorons an expert who was called in, or someone who was involved in the investigation from the off, who was subpoenaed for the defence?

Mr Freeze

NipNip wrote: »

Didn't see it this morning. Is Wolmorons an expert who was called in, or someone who was involved in the investigation from the off, who was subpoenaed for the defence?

Wolmoron is the new ballistics expert for the defence.

It seems the defence got this guy to do a better assessment after Dixon was destroyed by Nel.

So Nel is saying that the defence did a new report after Dixon's and after hearing the states. Wolmoron's report was filed after Dixon gave evidence and has no proof of ever giving a report to the defence before this, he claims he gave verbal reports and thinks he remembers printing something.

And Wolmoron is getting a bashing on some other things too, I don't know the full details, I am just following this blog, but it sounds like Nel is being very aggressive.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/09/oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamp-murder-trial-9-may

gramar

"Wolmarans reminds the court he is hard of hearing and has tinnitus, but "to me, they [the cricket bat and gunshots] sound very similar". He listened to them without his hearing aids in, he says"

"As Wollie Wolmarans talks about his hearing disability, Roux basically covers his face with his hand, is just staring at his witness"

They seemed to have really picked the expert witnesses well. Not only doesn't he do sounds tests with his hearing aid in he seems to have no records of his own reports. Shoddy to say the least.

NickD

My favourite bit from this morning was Wolmaran's admission that he brought Dixon out for a beer after his (Dixon's) cross examination by Nell.......that was a facepalm.

Mr Freeze

This is a bit like Dixon all over again, except not anywhere near as embarrassing, but in terms of the cross examination really making the defences ballistics experts look quite bad, and makes OPs version look less plausible (imo).

Nel refers to a photo of a probe placed in Steenkamp's hip wound by Professor Gert Saayman, the state pathologist, during the autopsy. Based on the photograph, Wolmarans in his report concluded that the trajectory was upwards. Nel wonders why he did not consult with Dr Reggie Perumal, the defence pathologist, who was present at the autopsy (Wolmarans was not there). The witness says he never got the opportunity to ask him.

(Dr Perumal has not been called by the defence to give evidence.)

This says a lot possibly, Dr Perumal may not have agreed with OP's version of events after the autopsy?

brimal

Anyone read up on Frank Chiziweni? Very strange..

• Frank Chiziweni is Oscar Pistorius' live-in butler/maid. He lives in OP's house, and was in the house while the accident/murder was happening.
• His name was first mentioned only a few days ago when a witness mentioned 'Frank'.
• The state and defence teams decided not to have him on the stand.
• Despite witnesses hearing screaming over 100 meters away, Chiziweni said 'I slept through the whole thing' and didn't hear a thing.

BQQ

brimal wrote: »

Anyone read up on Frank Chiziweni? Very strange..

• Frank Chiziweni is Oscar Pistorius' live-in butler/maid. He lives in OP's house, and was in the house while the accident/murder was happening.
• His name was first mentioned only a few days ago when a witness mentioned 'Frank'.
• The state and defence teams decided not to have him on the stand.
• Despite witnesses hearing screaming over 100 meters away, Chiziweni said 'I slept through the whole thing' and didn't hear a thing.

He's clearly lying.
Neither side wants to put him on the stand to perjure himself.