Oscar Pistorious Pt3

[bunchamunchycrunchycarrots]

Hope no one else has started this.

ellie Please enlighten me to the hypocricy?

no-one said that botha lied, people said he was incompetant - there was a difference.

But it makes no sense what so ever that if RS had had her skull crushed by a cricket bat that this wouldn't have been submitted as evidence in order to justify the charges brought. This bail hearing has gone on for four days. and the focus of it has been the gun, the bullets (one of which the investigation failed to find - it was located by the defense) the cricket bat (which was used to smash down the bathroom door) the steroids (which were a legal herbal supplement). Do you honestly think that if there was evidence of other physical asalt this wouldn't have been presented to back up the charge of premeditated murder? honestly?

Come off it, it the cricket bat was true, that would be the numero uno piece of evidence to back up the prosecution's story. Virtually no other piece of evidence would be required, there is absolutely no way they'd hold that back for the trial.

I am not commented on wether OP used the cricket bat on Reeva; but I wanted to point out that it is possible to have a fractured skull and still walk around...without being too graphic, if the damage isn't immediately lethal then it can take time to manifest.

'Last week the prosecution did not mention any details about the bat and the role they believe it played in Reeva?s death, opting not to disclose their case against Pistorius. But to secure bail, Pistorius?s legal team had to detail his defence, which included why he had a blood-spattered cricket bat in his possession on the fatal night.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283507/Horrified-family-told-Pistorius-DID-beat-Reeva-cricket-bat-shown-extensive-head-injuries.html

be that as it may, if the evidence was there it would have been presented. The investigating officer was asked specifically whether there was evidence of physical asalt and he said no. Now, we know he is incompetant, I don't think that's in dispute, however lying about a physical asalt would almost certainly mean that couldn't be presented as evidence in the trial - you can't say "no your honour, there wasn't a physical asalt," and then show up with claims of a fractured skull several months down the track - the autopsy had been carried out by the time the evidence had been presented so this isn't something new that could have come to light like the bolistic reports or phorensic investigations of the scene.

good god. the daily mail should be shut down for posting blatant crap like that. Actually the daily mail should just be shut down, but that's perhaps a discussion for another thread...

Do people genuinely believe that the prosecution would withhold the most vital, most damning piece of evidence of all even though not presenting it could have resulted in the murder charge being reduced? Just so they had something juicy to present in the trial? really?

From the Mail article, a quote from US lawyer Alan Dershowitz

I am certain that he instructed his lawyers to get him out on bail now, even if that meant compromising his longer-term chances of freedom. The best proof of that is the unusual affidavit he signed, laying out his defence in some detail.

He was not required to do that, but I?m certain his lawyer told him that he would increase his chances of getting bail if he put forward a plausible defence. However, there are great risks in submitting an affidavit before all the forensic evidence is in.

Scientific evaluation of the crime scene may show inconsistencies with the defence proffered in the affidavit. That would hurt Pistorius further down the line.

.....

Most lawyers would not have submitted such an affidavit. But the defence attorney knows more than I what is in the public record and may have made the right decision.

Various media reports this morning ....reporting that Carl Pistorius also facing (lesser) murder charge of killing female biker while drunk driving and due to go on trial ...could carry sentence of up to 15 years...what a family...so religious...so reckless ....perhaps he and his time will spend time together ...great for lawyers....wealthy clients in a great deal of trouble

he and his brother will spend time together ...sorry...so two innocent women have lost their lives to these two idiots

www.nypost.com/p/news/international/oscar_pistorius_brother_carl_faces_wpz66cCn4nkpNUaNv14bXM

I was surprised to hear about Carl on the radio too.

ok heard now Carl's lawyer says he was not drunk...so charge is culpable homicide - reckless (but not drunk) driving but his lawyer has confirmed he's facing charge...

another journo who spent 4 days with Oscar said he drove his car at 150 mph....

attny

are you resorting to further hearsay now to tarnish the reputation of a whole family? It's Oscar that we're discussing here. What his brother has done/not done is irrelevant.

No it is NOT hearsay...charge against Carl confirmed by his lawyer to the BBC..his brother has been prominent in media in his tweeting prosecuting are lying, in his turning up at flat to grab memory stick. I am sick of outpouring of sympathy for Oscar and his family and reports on how religious they are, particularly Oscar, rather than outpouring of sympathy for Reeva's family. In my view, it's all down to cult of celebrity.

Coming back to Oscar, South African writer on BBC this morning, said strongest point for him, was prosecution point that even if you give Oscar benefit of the doubt and believed his version thought it was an unseen intruder locked in his small toilet...gunning the unseen intruder down in cold blood still would be premeditated murder...

Its relevant on this thread.

BBC: The charges against Carl Pistorius over an accident involving his car in which a woman on a motorcycle died We have no idea what the circumstances of that accident were - yes someone tragically died but how do you know that the motorcyclist wasn't drunk? There is limited info about that and it is NOT relevant in the context of whether Oscar premeditated to kill Reeva.

And there has been plenty of outpouring of sympathy for Reeva's family, and no one is taking away from that... But that's not what the gist of this debate is about.

well prosecution must think there's enough evidence there to charge him....i did not say it's relevant to find Oscar guilty anywhere did I...but I commented before this thread before came out that to it seemed to me Carl in particular was not all he seemed and I stand by that...everyone here is expressing an opinion...and i doubt anything I say on MN will tarnish this family's reputation...i think they have done that all by themselves,,,even in SA folk are divided on their views

attny He has to be charged. Someone died. But until he's been to trial and been proven guilty of causing that death that's all it is - a charge. Carl (and his character) are not what this thread is about.

It's not unusual that everyone is divided on this case. What I find cheap is the peddling of tabloid gossip in the attempt to discredit the whole Pistorius family.

" what a family...so religious...so reckless"

reckless at the very least.

How many families do you know, where 2 brothers are accused of murder???

Just, really bad luck cleo?

No wrong.!..you do NOT have to be charged if someone dies in a car accident at all! You are charged if the prosecution believe there is enough of a case to go ahead with a prosecution...here for culpable homicide ...as for peddling tabloid gossip where have i done that.....i think family hiring Sun hack is doing their bit on media portrayal...and there has been a strong portrayal of them in the media...and much mention of how religious they are particularly Carl.

And, people can bring whatever they like to the thread...the reader can choose ro consider or dismiss. It's not OPs trial

but how do you know that the motorcyclist wasn't drunk?

might you not be tarnishing image the poor victim here...Cleo.....and that's without anything in the media even suggesting that anywhere as far as I know