Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Oscar pistorius

999 replies

spiderbabymum · 14/02/2013 07:11

Heard the news this am

I'm just Devastated for him and his family and partners family

OP posts:
YellowFlyingPineapple · 21/02/2013 12:41

mcmooncup - ????

lougle · 21/02/2013 12:46

Nothing like a bit of impartiality there, mcmooncup.

Court has been cleared due to 'threat to the court'.

HazelnutinCaramel · 21/02/2013 12:56

mooncup what has you so convinced of his guilt? Genuinely?

Andro · 21/02/2013 12:59

It is exploitation of the 'probable'.

That's the reality of any criminal case though. Prosecution vs defence, one set of evidence and 2 lawyers/barristers/advocates trying to make it prove 'their' version of events. Every adversarial legal system has the same problem, each side wants to win and the absolute truth isn't really that important to them.

lougle · 21/02/2013 13:12

"the absolute truth isn't really that important to them."

That's not quite fair. The defence isn't allowed to lie. They can't act for the defendant if they know them to be guilty, ie. they confess. They can only use the evidence to secure the best outcome for their client.

mcmooncup · 21/02/2013 13:12

I am pretty much convinced he is lying.

There you go. That's my opinion.

And yes, the absolute truth must not get it in the way of a good win Angry

YellowFlyingPineapple · 21/02/2013 13:16

mcmooncup - I am pretty much convinced he is lying

This professional opinion is based on what exactly?

runningforthebusinheels · 21/02/2013 13:18

This will be a bigger farce than OJ Simpson's trial.

My personal feeling on this is that he's guilty as sin, but will walk because the prosecution are making a right old balls up of the whole thing. And because he's got the best defence money can buy - who will pick and cast doubt on each tiny detail. I think he's made up the whole intruder story up as a cover for shooting Reeva in a violent loss of temper. And yes, I realise that this is pure speculation on my part, at this stage, but to me, his story is completely implausible.

My dh read that Oscar's brother and lawyer were on the premises before the police even got there. Anyone else read that?

lougle · 21/02/2013 13:21

Oh mcmooncup, I'm so glad you've arrived - there's really no need for a trial at all Smile Do you think you should email the judge and offer your services?

Andro · 21/02/2013 13:24

I'm not suggesting that the defence (or the prosecution for that matter) are allowed to lie, I saying that their job is to win - by whatever legal means.

Assume that the defence advocate has not been told by OP straight out 'I deliberately killed my GF', his job at that point is ultimately to create enough doubt to gain an acquittal for his client - as far as he's concerned his client is not guilty. Suggest that certain evidence is unreliable because of xyz? Fine. Discredit the investigating officer if possible? Fine (and pretty easy during yesterdays hearing). Cast doubt on what was seen or heard? No problem in law.

Prosecution could ask 'what did you hear on the night of xxxx'
Witness 'I heard yyy'
Defence queries every word of the witnesses answer and then asks 'it is possible then that instead of yyy, you may actually have heard zzz?'

Witness then looks less than 100% reliable and another glimmer of doubt is raised.

DreamsTurnToGoldDust · 21/02/2013 13:34

I can sort of see where mcmoon is coming from, the problems with such high profile emotive trials are that the victim becomes something to be fought over, which can make it looks as though what happened to them is not as important as the defendent having a hot shot defence team who can outwitt the prosecution, as OJ Simpson.

So I guess people feel that he might walk away from this and carry on as before and not take any responsibility for Reeva`s death.

But, I guess thats justice for you, it can never be perfect.

mcmooncup · 21/02/2013 13:35

Oh lougle.....you really want me to repeat the holes in his defence!?!
They are pretty obvious IMO.

What makes you think he's innocent?

YellowFlyingPineapple · 21/02/2013 13:38

mcmooncup....go on I have a free moment indulge me with your wisdom and professional opinion

HazelnutinCaramel · 21/02/2013 13:39

There's no evidence to contradict his version!

lougle · 21/02/2013 13:42

Yes, please do mcmooncup Smile

OJ's glove was highly controversial - it had been frozen and thawed several times and soaked in blood. OJ had not taken his anti-inflammatories, meaning his hands were swollen. They then used that to suggest the glove was not his.

willowsun · 21/02/2013 13:42
Sad
DreamsTurnToGoldDust · 21/02/2013 13:43

Hes not innocent!He shot and killed her, all they are arguing is whether he meant to or not, he can never be innocent.

DreamsTurnToGoldDust · 21/02/2013 13:44

I dont know whether he did it or not, but I can see that people worry that a hot shot team will allow him to walk away from any responsibility.

Somebodysomewhere · 21/02/2013 13:46

Can someone outline the actual facts that we have ? Not whats written in the papers ? Because i am having a hard time separating the two as so much has been written, then discredited and so on ?

Everything we hear seems to be false or inaccurate atm. I wouldnt want to be in charge of this one.

lougle · 21/02/2013 13:50

The facts:
Oscar Pistorius fired shots at shortly after 3am into the toilet cubicle.
Reeva was in the cubicle
Reeva died

That's the facts.

The rest is reliant on either forensics or Oscar Pistorius' accounts.

wannaBe · 21/02/2013 13:53

"My dh read that Oscar's brother and lawyer were on the premises before the police even got there. Anyone else read that?" I think most of what we've "read" in the press has already been proven to be bullshit. I've read somewhere that her head had been caved in with a cricket bat (later shown to have been the bat used to open the door, not to cave in someone's skull) that there were steroids on the property (legal supplement used by athletes) shall I go on?

The only evidence that points to his potentially being guilty of murder is the fact a woman is dea, and I use the word only because the fact the woman is dead would have happened either way iyswim. But evidence that points to his potentially not being guilty of murder is:

no evidence of domestic violence i.e. she had not been asalted physically in any way, the only harm to her was the gunshot wounds, so this discredits the theory that this was DV which escalated.

The fact she was in a locked bathroom and had an empty bladder which is indicative of the fact she had in fact got up to go to the loo rather than that this was an argument which had escalated.

So what would be the motive then for getting up in the middle of the night, waiting for your girlfriend to go to the toilet and then shooting her through the door and then claiming you thought it was an intruder?

The theory that it happened that way just doesn't make sense at all.

Somebodysomewhere · 21/02/2013 13:53

Thought as much. The thing with the baseball bat - was that rubbish/inaccurate then ?

Is it also fact he tried to revive her ? I thought that was. Not that it proves anything either way ofcourse.

Andro · 21/02/2013 13:54

DreamsTurnToGoldDust - even if it is ultimately the verdict that he didn't 'murder' his gf, he has and will continue to pay a price for his actions. He has lost his status and reputation - I can't see that reversing whatever happens - and he will have to live with the knowledge of what he did. Maybe it's not the price some would want him to pay (a minimum 15 years in prison with a high chance of being gang raped and ending up HIV+ if some of the comments about 'getting what he deserves' are to be believed) but he has and will continue to pay a price for what he did.

Somebodysomewhere · 21/02/2013 13:54

Ah x posted.

YellowFlyingPineapple · 21/02/2013 13:57

Dreams - I don't think anybody is arguing that the actions of OP killed RS, she is dead because of him, however intention to do so or tragic accident is the pivotal point. If it was a tragic accident he should not be imprisoned IMO and if he is a bad egg who flipped or meant to kill her he should spend his days in Pretoria's finest Correctional facilities.