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

Mr Freeze

robinph wrote: »

Now I think he's even more of a pr*ck and should never have been given a gun license, guess they give out quite a lot of them in SA though. I didn't see anything to convince me of his intention to murder Reeva though, but that doesn't mean that I think he should go free.

Well anyone that has read this thread knows that your opinion, and you are absolutely entitled to it. I'm not arguing with anyone cause you could be right, only OP knows for sure.

But after learning (for definite) that he was sane at the time and knew right from wrong, and being left in no doubt that he is a total pr*ck unable to take responsibility for any of actions or failings, his version is so improbable...

Do you not think that he could have snapped and murdered her after an argument? I mean now after all we have heard.

I do think its more likely than his story.

sham69

robinph wrote: »

Slightly confused as to if you are claiming to have made a mistake or not. Bit of a strange mistake to make though when referring to someone aged 29, also not sure what you think is over the top and insensitive about my comments? Is it just because I'm not getting emotional over it?

Calling her a "young girl" would be equivalent of claiming that Pistouris was a cripple who couldn't look after himself at all to try and get an emotional response from the audience in his favour.

Yeah I suppose it is.
You do come across as quite cold and heartless..
I have often heard of people aged 29 and older being referred to as a 'young girl'?
I suppose it depends in the age of the person saying it.
I did mean to type young woman though, I said twice that I made a mistake.

Still confused?

robinph

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Do you not think that he could have snapped and murdered her after an argument? I mean now after all we have heard.

Yes.

Just not seeing sufficient any evidence that that is what happened. So in that instance I'd be inclined to chose the manslaughter conviction, with the 15 year term, rather than the murder conviction, that also has 15 year term I seem to remember.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

Yes there is a need to nit-pick because by saying that she was a "young girl" you are making the statement unnecessarily emotional. Its not like there is a need for the victim in this situation to be pointed out or made to seem even more vulnerable

There is no need to do that, everyone knows what happened and nobody is disputing it, and she was most certainly not a young girl.

If she were called a "young girl" in court before a jury I'd expect it to cause objections to be raised.

Really? Could you let me know at what age a court finds it acceptable to shoot a female. There's a woman down the road with a load of filthy cats and I could definitely build a case around my phobia for cleaning up other people's cat****.

If the prosecution had used the term 'young girl' there is no way the defence would even blink. If it was a rape case or a fraud case, describing her as a young girl might be relevant but unfortunately age does not confer bullet-proof status on anybody. In the unlikely event the term was used the defence would have had to swallow it as to object would be akin to saying that it wasn't too bad to be shoot an ould hag of 29.

Da Shins Kelly

robinph wrote: »

Yes there is a need to nit-pick because by saying that she was a "young girl" you are making the statement unnecessarily emotional. Its not like there is a need for the victim in this situation to be pointed out or made to seem even more vulnerable

There is no need to do that, everyone knows what happened and nobody is disputing it, and she was most certainly not a young girl.

If she were called a "young girl" in court before a jury I'd expect it to cause objections to be raised.

:rolleyes:

We're not in a court, so who really gives a fcuk whether people use "emotional" language or not? I wouldn't even consider someone saying 'girl' in place of 'woman' particularly emotional anyway, and I seriously doubt many would. It's neither here nor there.

Mr Freeze

robinph wrote: »

Yes.

Just not seeing sufficient any evidence that that is what happened. So in that instance I'd be inclined to chose the manslaughter conviction, with the 15 year term, rather than the murder conviction, that also has 15 year term I seem to remember.

Well I think he murdered her with intent knowing full well it was Reeva behind the door.

But I agree, I think he will get the manslaughter charge too because there is doubt, It can't be proven outright that it was intentional, its just the most likely scenario, his version is a mess, but that's not enough to convict him of murder.

I think I heard/read it was 15 years for the manslaughter too and the same for the gun and ammo charges.

AudreyHepburn

http://news.sky.com/story/1314435/pistorius-trial-closing-arguments-live-updates

Closing arguments start today. Nel is first up.

snubbleste

Prosecution: "We have three different versions from the Accused"

Mr Freeze

I don't think I will be able to listen to Roux when its his turn.

The defence has been so bad so far, it actually annoys me listening to it.

NickD

I read somewhere that Milady can cross exam Nel and Roux during their arguments and through her questions can show where she is leaning. She's fairly quiet with Nel

Mr Freeze

NickD wrote: »

She's fairly quiet with Nel

Good sign for the state or a bad sign?

NickD

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Good sign for the state or a bad sign?

Good sign for the prosecution, it means she has very little problems with their case.

AudreyHepburn

NickD wrote: »

I read somewhere that Milady can cross exam Nel and Roux during their arguments and through her questions can show where she is leaning. She's fairly quiet with Nel

She must be satisfied with his testimony. I'd actually be surprised to see OP go free now, regardless of what I personally believe.

Hande hoche!

"I became a lawyer because I can't count" Nell, you witty thing.

Da Shins Kelly

I don't think he was ever going to go free, it's just a matter of what the sentence handed down will be. I'll actually be surprised if he doesn't get murder. I just find his whole story ridiculous honestly.

badabing106

A recap of the prosecutions final arguments, in which they tear apart pistorius case, begins at 9:30pm on sky

conorh91

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I don't think he was ever going to go free, it's just a matter of what the sentence handed down will be. I'll actually be surprised if he doesn't get murder. I just find his whole story ridiculous honestly.

I would be shocked if a verdict of murder were returned. It isn't going to happen. Would probably bet on this if it were not in such bad taste.

Dublin Red Devil

I have always thought he was guilty. Never believed his defense for a minute. He will get a lengthy sentence anyway, But I believe he is guilty of murder

Mr Freeze

I wonder how Roux will do today.

He hasn't sounded very convincing so far (in my opinion) but I think he will be strong today, he has to be.

Roux just has to cast a load of doubt now really doesn't he on the premeditated charge.

AudreyHepburn

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I wonder how Roux will do today.

He hasn't sounded very convincing so far (in my opinion) but I think he will be strong today, he has to be.

Roux just has to cast a load of doubt now really doesn't he on the premeditated charge.

Exactly. He doesn't need to prove Pistorius innocent, just make it so, as you say, there is doubt in Judge Masipa's mind about his guilt.

I still think Roux has a chance, if he really goes for it today.

robinph

He should be getting 15 years for the holding of illegal ammunition I believe, and that is a fixed minimum term. They didn't really dispute that charge too much except for saying that it was his dad's, he didn't back up that story, nothing more really was said on that charge.

So if he then gets a concurrent culpable homicide or murder charge to go along with that or not doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the overall sentencing duration. Presumably they would make a difference to when he'd be eligible for parole within that duration though.

Mr Freeze

Alex Crawford from Twitter
#OscarPistorius Judge asks; So what shd this court find? Roux: He's guilty of being negligent (re Tashas incident)

So, does this mean that he will be found guilty on the firing weapon in the car or restaurant incident? EDIT, its the restaurant incident.

I'm not 100% sure what they were referring too there.

On to the ammo in the safe now.

NipNip

Roux arguing a similarity to battered wife syndrome has to be the lamest argument I've ever heard. Even masipa had to ask how it applied to this case

NipNip

Also, on the 'young girl' issue.. Roux had no problem referring to a 'young boy with no legs...'

Mr Freeze

NipNip wrote: »

Also, on the 'young girl' issue.. Roux had no problem referring to a 'young boy with no legs...'

Who can't run away from danger! Despite now being a grown man and a sprinter!

It did seem a bit lame from Roux.

BQQ

NipNip wrote: »

Roux arguing a similarity to battered wife syndrome has to be the lamest argument I've ever heard. Even masipa had to ask how it applied to this case

Yeah, that was shameless.
The judge is known to come down hard on cases of domestic abuse, so that is why he tried it.

Mr Freeze

BQQ wrote: »

The judge is known to come down hard on cases of domestic abuse, so that is why he tried it.

Might backfire so.

Mr Freeze

Dr Stipp also testified to hearing screams, Roux says. There was a break for lunch in the middle of Stipp’s testimony, Roux says: after the hour-long break, Stipp described the screams (as he had not done in his police statement) as anguished, fearful, severely emotional. Prior to lunch and in his earlier statements, he had merely said it was a female voice. Why did he not say this before, Roux asks.

You cannot rely on him. You have to put a big question mark on his evidence.

Roux suggesting Dr Stipp may have been coaxed into changing his evidence after a lunchbreak.

By that same rational, should the judge not put a big question mark on OPs own evidence?

NickD

Barry Roux has the most boring voice of any man in the world

NipNip

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Might backfire so.

I couldn't figure out where he was going with it at all! Was wondering was he going to claim OP was a battered boyfriend!! Ludicrous attempt at defence