marko Posted 13 April 2014 Posted 13 April 2014 They'd had an argument, she locked herself in the bathroom, he tried to bash the door down with a cricket bat, failed, so he fired his gun instead. That's the most plausible run of events imo. That's definitely 100% incorrect. Even the State have acknowledged the gunshots were fired first then the cricket bat was used.
kingfox Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Has he just really said, that she must of used her cellphone light to see in the toilet? If so he has seriously lost it, what a stupid thing to say.
Ric Flair Posted 15 April 2014 Posted 15 April 2014 Has he just really said, that she must of used her cellphone light to see in the toilet? If so he has seriously lost it, what a stupid thing to say. To be fair i've used my phones back light to enable me to see in the middle of the night, numerous times when going for a piss. Also it's been stated that the toilet light in the bathroom was broken. Not sure if that's just Oscar changing his story of if it's been confirmed.
marko Posted 15 April 2014 Posted 15 April 2014 Is manslaughter a sentencing option? Yes, most definitely. If the State can't prove intent on the premeditated murder charge they can secure a conviction for culpable homicide - manslaughter to us - if they prove Pistorius was negligent in shooting through the door, which is likely on his evidence. To be fair i've used my phones back light to enable me to see in the middle of the night, numerous times when going for a piss. Also it's been stated that the toilet light in the bathroom was broken. Not sure if that's just Oscar changing his story of if it's been confirmed. No, it's been confirmed the toilet light was indeed broken.
Guest MattP Posted 15 April 2014 Posted 15 April 2014 Yes, most definitely. If the State can't prove intent on the premeditated murder charge they can secure a conviction for culpable homicide - manslaughter to us - if they prove Pistorius was negligent in shooting through the door, which is likely on his evidence. It's an interesting scenario, even if the judge believes he killed her and he knew what he was doing she can still downgrade the charge at her own discretion if she believes the state failed to prove he knew he was shooting at her. It's a real get out clause for him and I think she'll take that option in the end.
marko Posted 15 April 2014 Posted 15 April 2014 It's an interesting scenario, even if the judge believes he killed her and he knew what he was doing she can still downgrade the charge at her own discretion if she believes the state failed to prove he knew he was shooting at her. It's a real get out clause for him and I think she'll take that option in the end. If it is downgraded then the judge will assess his level of negligence and sentence accordingly. The test of negligence is what a 'reasonable person' would do in the situation. If convicted on the culpable homicide charge he could get anything up to 15 years. Plus, the other three charges all carry fairly heavy maximum sentences and I can't see him getting away with them at all. I think Pistorius is going to be behind bars for a significant period of time.
TrentFox Posted 16 April 2014 Posted 16 April 2014 Gerrie Nel. Putting the 'cross' back into cross examination !
johnny the fox Posted 16 April 2014 Posted 16 April 2014 If this cant don't go down big time there is no justice. complete willy puller.
Haydos Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 If this cant don't go down big time there is no justice. complete willy puller. Your honour.
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 Guity as sin. But how reliable a justice system do they have in Sarf Arflica, I dunno. Stranger things have happened.
Kitchandro Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 I just feel like he's going to get off lightly now. It's been going on too long without something concrete. I'm not sure what this technical evidence about bats and gunshot sounds and where the fan is is proving. None of it is really enough to send someone down or prove their innocence in this case is it? Get to the point someone.
RonnieTodger Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 He was absolutely twisted and turned by the prosecutor. Amazing if he gets off lightly.
marko Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 I just feel like he's going to get off lightly now. It's been going on too long without something concrete. I'm not sure what this technical evidence about bats and gunshot sounds and where the fan is is proving. None of it is really enough to send someone down or prove their innocence in this case is it? Get to the point someone. What does that even mean? Yes, the forensic evidence is extremely important. Can determine order of shots, gives a rough idea of gaps between shots, determined whether he went at door with cricket bat or gun first. Also important as it can help his defence counsel state bat and gunshot sound similar at certain distances, which they can then use to damage the credibility of State witnesses. After the bashing his credibility took during cross-examination I'd be amazed if he got off lightly. Even if he's found not guilty of the premeditated murder charge, he's going to the big house for culpable homicide.
Kitchandro Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 What does that even mean? Yes, the forensic evidence is extremely important. Can determine order of shots, gives a rough idea of gaps between shots, determined whether he went at door with cricket bat or gun first. Also important as it can help his defence counsel state bat and gunshot sound similar at certain distances, which they can then use to damage the credibility of State witnesses. After the bashing his credibility took during cross-examination I'd be amazed if he got off lightly. Even if he's found not guilty of the premeditated murder charge, he's going to the big house for culpable homicide. It's unlikely to prove he shot her on purpose though. It sounds all very bitty to me, some of these facts may suggest some things, but I'm yet to see any case crackers. At the moment it's all about doubts and potential scenarios. I'm waiting for some kind of trump card here that proves he shot her on purpose, or I suppose, that he didn't. It seems very difficult to prove for sure regardless of forensic evidence, and unless he goes down for 1st degree murder I'd consider him getting off lightly.
NewburyFox Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 It's unlikely to prove he shot her on purpose though. It sounds all very bitty to me, some of these facts may suggest some things, but I'm yet to see any case crackers. At the moment it's all about doubts and potential scenarios. I'm waiting for some kind of trump card here that proves he shot her on purpose, or I suppose, that he didn't. It seems very difficult to prove for sure regardless of forensic evidence, and unless he goes down for 1st degree murder I'd consider him getting off lightly. Cases don't tend to work that way. One of the defence's jobs is to throw as much doubt over the prosecutor's argument as possible, hence all the technicalities about what order things came in. They're essentially trying to make the state's witness statements, which obviously the state are using to suggest that Oscar is guilty of pre-meditated murder, as unreliable as possible so it can't be definitely said that he intended to kill her. If there was one concrete piece of evidence that he did intend to kill her then it would've been made public weeks ago. He will be done for culpable homicide (manslaughter here) if the judge finds that there's not enough evidence to convict him of pre-meditated murder, I'd imagine. After the hammering his credibility has took at the hands of Nel though over the past couple of weeks, I'm leaning towards him being found guilty.
marko Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 Joke in poor taste coming up so look away if offended. Just a thought, but if Oscar Pistorius is holding a cricket bat and he's standing on his stumps, is he out?
MPH Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 When the verdict is given, I think we will Find out just how far South Africa has progressed as a nation...
marko Posted 17 April 2014 Posted 17 April 2014 Top pathologist will no longer testify for defence as his findings appear to support that of the State. Not been a good week for Pistorius after he was savaged in cross-emaination, as was as his expert witness Roger Dixon. https://za.news.yahoo.com/top-pathologist-hired-pistorius-wont-testify-142633899.html
Bobby Hundreds Posted 18 April 2014 Posted 18 April 2014 In summary, the first defence witness agreed with the state on the ballistics, the third defence witness contradicted the accused's story and the second defence witness was Oscar. Going well lad.
ScouseFox Posted 6 May 2014 Posted 6 May 2014 so now we've taken to witnesses giving impressions of the cries they heard that night. "weeeeeehhhhhh" in a high pitch voice. bit odd.
marko Posted 6 May 2014 Posted 6 May 2014 Another joke in poor taste so look away if offended. Oscar Pistorius has said he won't be entering any further races.I think he has to worry more about different races entering him, once he's in prison
purpleronnie Posted 7 August 2014 Posted 7 August 2014 So as it comes to an end, guilty? Innocent? opinions on likely sentencing, I'd hazard a guess of guilty of manslaughter.
David Guiza Posted 7 August 2014 Posted 7 August 2014 So as it comes to an end, guilty? Innocent? opinions on likely sentencing, I'd hazard a guess of guilty of manslaughter. Not quite yet. Speaking from a legal standpoint, i can't see how he could possibly get away with it. The requirements for the actus reus (physically action) of both murder and manslaughter (in England) are that the defendant did the act, the act was deliberate, the act was unlawful, the act was the significant cause of death and the death was of a person in being. All of which can't really be argued at all. The difference comes with the mens rea (mental element). Murder requires the unlawful killing of a human bring with malice aforethought (intention), whereas manslaughter can only require recklessness. Surely even the most lenient of people cannot deny that it was reckless, even if there was no intention to kill.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.