Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

louise normal prosecco - but am useless lightweight!

I'm very much liking the judge too.

Do you think this case has long term implications for DV in SA - e.g he can't not be charged with murder as sets precedent ?

There's a lot of Friday night around

It is just interesting to me how the people I've spoken to about it in RL think he is guilty of murder, no matter what the verdict. I find that sad.

Jill I completely agree, he should serve a sentence. I think he will get one, though for CH not murder.

I trust in the judge - I think this a case that put's the SA justice system in a world view and I think she'll do a good job.

But I can't imagine how OP will get away with this scott-free - he'll do time. He killed another human being - either by rage or fear, but certainly by recklessness. He has to pay for that.

There's a thing...how does OP suppose the intruder(s) got into his toilet cubicle?

Anyone who keeps those bullets that explode on contact, and uses them, has premeditated it IMO. They are designed to annihilate the recipient. He could have had normal bullets (I believe) that, if used, she may have stood a chance.

The Judge is great. When I first heard there was no jury I was appalled but I've changed my mind. Bearing in mind the standard of some juries I think it's actually a good idea.

Did anyone see a while back, during a court case here, one of the jurors apparently asked if they could base their verdict on information picked up outside the courtroom (ie the Daily Mail etc)? I despair

How, not meaning to bring the thread down, but there have been a couple of MNers who have come onto the thread and stated that they know he's guilty and this is what happened.

To these people, it doesn't matter what the verdict, he will indeed have "got off with it".

Luckily, the majority are keen to listen, share and debate and there are loads like me who have a totally splintered arse from swivelling around on the fence.

Now off for my third prosecco

In the interests of balance, I have just had peppermint tea

Bumpotato He obviously thought they'd used the ladders left by the builders to climb up to the bathroom window, which had no bars on.

Yes the bullets are awful. I always though in this country that they were illegal until the police used them to kill Jean Charles de Menezes. Of course we aren't allowed handguns are we, so that's a moot point I suppose. Mind you, with a shot to the head it mightn't make much difference. If he hadn't hit her in the head anyway, she might have lived and then we'd know the truth.

I need a peppermint tea too - feeling drunk!

Happy weekend everyone. See you Monday

Spring - depends on the size of the glass.

Further balance - I've had a fair amount amount of gin tonight.

My posts my belie me, but you don't know how long it took it to type them.... m'lady.

What?: Those bullets were used on Jean Charles Menezes? Really?

Bum potato I believe that he supposed they got in through the bathroom window and when they heard him shout, they shut themselves in the toilet. Presumably to scramble out the toilet window unseen.

Re the bullets, I read somewhere in the screeds and screeds of stuff I've seen, that the are the bullets of choice for home defense as there is no chance of hitting one of your family standing behind an intruder.

Sabrina yes or something very similar. Dumdum bullets they are called over, they explode on impact. I can't imagine how horrific that must have been, not just for him (although it would have been over very quickly) but for the other people in that tube carriage.

"called over here". I wish I could edit posts, I type far too quickly.

Goodnight Sauce ...or maybe I should say "as it pleases the court, my lady"

Hi!
Haven't read the whole thread yet, but someone up the page asked what people here think. It's a massive topic of conversation everywhere and most people think he is guilty. They think it was some sort of argument. Nobody can understand why he didn't move the ladders and check out the alarms and so on before going to bed.

Sorry, bit random, there's a lot going on in this thread!

"called over here". I wish I could edit posts, I type far too quickly.

Ugh to the bulllet type. He shot into that door purposedly.

Whoever was on the other side was going to get shredded - he did it. That's my take on it.

"that the are the bullets of choice for home defense as there is no chance of hitting one of your family standing behind an intruder."

Yep, that's why those special police units use them. They won't go through someone and hit an innocent person behind.

To answer the earlier question of HowAboutNo, I think he's guilty, but yes, I would accept the verdict of the judge, as I have no legal knowledge whatsoever, and so she is obviously better placed than me to make a fair judgment. However I also kind of agree with those that say he needs to serve time for his own sake, even if not guilty of murder, in order to have any chance of getting over it.

My opinion Of his guilt (or not) changes daily and until the Olympics I had never heard of him and even then wasn't bothered.i can't see how his words are being twisted by the prosecution.

re the following points

1. No evidence of an argument or any reason for one that evening

2.No evidence (despite being a bad tempered arse) that he was violent to her or any previous girlfriend 3.No other motive suggested 4.Immediately afterwards he rang for help/ambulance/security and had tried to give first aid (as noted by Dr Stipp who was one of the first on the scene) 5.No evidence that she had tried to ring for help whilst in the loo 6.Witness statements regarding the screaming can be contradicted by defence witnesses to be presented

Has the court completely disregarded the witnesses wh said they heard an argument?

How immediately did he call for help?

What other motives do there need to be?

Maybe she didn't ring for help because she had no idea that he was going to be crazy enough to shoot her to death?

It really worries me to think of innocent people going to prison but if the trial continues in this way I think there will be enough evidence to prove he is lying.

On the other hand the defence will have their day and things may change.

Did anyone else not realise before this case that you could shoot someone through a door? I thought a wooden door would take most of the impact of it. I guess I didn't understand quite how powerful a bullet must be. If I was OP I'd have used that in my defence, but maybe it's obvious to most people a door wouldn't deflect a bullet so it never crossed his mind.
(Half glass of wine so no excuse for rambling really My Lady)

StackALee

Has the court completely disregarded the witnesses who said they heard an argument?
The defence have said they have witnesses who lived nearby who say they heard no argument and no woman screaming. This should cancel out the other testimony or at least cast doubt upon it.

How immediately did he call for help?
He rang for help at (according to the phone records) 3.17 for the first call, followed by two more calls in quick succession

What other motives do there need to be?
There's no motive except vague "jealousy" which is hardly conclusive. I don't know what else there could be but this is a bit too vague for my liking

Maybe she didn't ring for help because she had no idea that he was going to be crazy enough to shoot her to death?
Maybe not but then why do you think she took the phone to the loo with her?

The prosecution have presented all their evidence and yet you, and others, still appear uncertain Apart from OP's testimony the defence have yet to present their case which should, obviously, strengthen their case.

But we will see next week . Time for bed now I think.