Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
Discussion
dfen5 said:
Don't want to side track the thread with all this but Google Victor Marx.
Let's pretend OP is holding out his firearm aiming down the sights, all tactical-like because he's been on AJL's course. I'm by OP's side with my pistol my way. We turn the corner into the bathroom area and walk into Victor who's stopped by for a piss. Who's going to get disarmed and who's going to teach Victor not to drop by other people's toilets in the middle of the night?
There's clearing a room and there's clearing a room.
Uncle Tom demonstrates for us nicely here.
Dude we're talking about Oscar P..... Silly man with a big gun. Not some made up film scene.
Let's pretend OP is holding out his firearm aiming down the sights, all tactical-like because he's been on AJL's course. I'm by OP's side with my pistol my way. We turn the corner into the bathroom area and walk into Victor who's stopped by for a piss. Who's going to get disarmed and who's going to teach Victor not to drop by other people's toilets in the middle of the night?
There's clearing a room and there's clearing a room.
Uncle Tom demonstrates for us nicely here.
Dude we're talking about Oscar P..... Silly man with a big gun. Not some made up film scene.
Piersman2 said:
When I first heard that Reeva had been shot in the toilet, I'd assumed she was on the toilet.
However, something that crossed my mind when I saw the trial coverage and the layout of the toilet above ^^^, is that Reeva can't have been on the toilet, it's not in line of fire of the shots based on where they are shown on the door during the trial.
She must have been stood or even sat directly behind the door for the four shots to have all hit, especially the head shot.
Why would someone be doing that? To stop someone breaking down the door, maybe? With a cricket bat? Never dreaming that the nutter on the other side would return with a gun and fire through the door in a fit of rage?
Exactly the same thought crossed my mind. Stood bracing herself against it.However, something that crossed my mind when I saw the trial coverage and the layout of the toilet above ^^^, is that Reeva can't have been on the toilet, it's not in line of fire of the shots based on where they are shown on the door during the trial.
She must have been stood or even sat directly behind the door for the four shots to have all hit, especially the head shot.
Why would someone be doing that? To stop someone breaking down the door, maybe? With a cricket bat? Never dreaming that the nutter on the other side would return with a gun and fire through the door in a fit of rage?
goldblum said:
Captain Ahab said:
Pesty said:
Exactly the same thought crossed my mind. Stood bracing herself against it.
i thought the shots were fired low down? how would you get a head shot if she was right up against the door ?
Dixon's testimony was shot one was to the hip, she started to fall, so next was to the arm, and final to the head as she was falling.
JustinP1 said:
Yes.
Dixon's testimony was shot one was to the hip, she started to fall, so next was to the arm, and final to the head as she was falling.
And a flat, dispassionate appraisal of the probable events like that Justin slams me back to the horrific reality of this poor girls death. It's that scene that needs focus, not the farce we are watching play out of this selfish coward.Dixon's testimony was shot one was to the hip, she started to fall, so next was to the arm, and final to the head as she was falling.
Considering we have the body and OP admitting it was he who did the shooting, it has been he who needs to introduce the reasonable doubt, as the prima facie case looks strong.
Has he done enough to make you doubt he intended to shoot through that door, and that he knew his girlfriend was behind it?
I'm not so sure he has. Ironically, at the close of the prosecution I was less convinced of his guilt than after his taking the stand.
Has he done enough to make you doubt he intended to shoot through that door, and that he knew his girlfriend was behind it?
I'm not so sure he has. Ironically, at the close of the prosecution I was less convinced of his guilt than after his taking the stand.
10 Pence Short said:
Considering we have the body and OP admitting it was he who did the shooting, it has been he who needs to introduce the reasonable doubt, as the prima facie case looks strong.
Has he done enough to make you doubt he intended to shoot through that door, and that he knew his girlfriend was behind it?
I'm not so sure he has. Ironically, at the close of the prosecution I was less convinced of his guilt than after his taking the stand.
Same here. I didn't think much of him before he gave evidence, but it was a hell of a lot less by the time he finished.Has he done enough to make you doubt he intended to shoot through that door, and that he knew his girlfriend was behind it?
I'm not so sure he has. Ironically, at the close of the prosecution I was less convinced of his guilt than after his taking the stand.
There is one legal expert in particular who has been providing daily analysis, can't recall his name at the moment, but he explained that because Pistorius was the only person present at the time he really had to give evidence otherwise his version couldn't be tested under cross examination. I rather suspect his lawyers wish they hadn't had to. He gave the impression of not having been very well briefed, but I think perhaps it was a combination of the fact that he seems impossibly arrogant and that he seemed to be trying to make his ''version'' fit a pre-determined set of criteria
Does anyone remember this?
At his bail hearing shortly after the incident, Pistorius' team poured scorn on the evidence of the officer who was initially in charge of the case about the police having witnesses who heard shots and screams that night, with the defence claiming they were much too far away.
Well, those witnesses have since given evidence in the case - one of them was the hospital consultant whose name escapes me at the moment - and one of them mentioned that they had heard shouting twice, once that night and once when the defence were conducting tests to see how far away noises from Pistorius' house could be heard, which sounds like a bit of an epic fail to me. I can't remember the prosecution presenting evidence to confirm that they could indeed have heard over that distance.
So - if the defence conducted those tests, and the shouting could indeed be heard over those distances, are they entitled still to challenge the witnesses' evidence?
I'm not sure if I have made myself very clear there, maybe it's just too early in the day!
At his bail hearing shortly after the incident, Pistorius' team poured scorn on the evidence of the officer who was initially in charge of the case about the police having witnesses who heard shots and screams that night, with the defence claiming they were much too far away.
Well, those witnesses have since given evidence in the case - one of them was the hospital consultant whose name escapes me at the moment - and one of them mentioned that they had heard shouting twice, once that night and once when the defence were conducting tests to see how far away noises from Pistorius' house could be heard, which sounds like a bit of an epic fail to me. I can't remember the prosecution presenting evidence to confirm that they could indeed have heard over that distance.
So - if the defence conducted those tests, and the shouting could indeed be heard over those distances, are they entitled still to challenge the witnesses' evidence?
I'm not sure if I have made myself very clear there, maybe it's just too early in the day!
TheSnitch said:
Does anyone remember this?
At his bail hearing shortly after the incident, Pistorius' team poured scorn on the evidence of the officer who was initially in charge of the case about the police having witnesses who heard shots and screams that night, with the defence claiming they were much too far away.
Well, those witnesses have since given evidence in the case - one of them was the hospital consultant whose name escapes me at the moment - and one of them mentioned that they had heard shouting twice, once that night and once when the defence were conducting tests to see how far away noises from Pistorius' house could be heard, which sounds like a bit of an epic fail to me. I can't remember the prosecution presenting evidence to confirm that they could indeed have heard over that distance.
So - if the defence conducted those tests, and the shouting could indeed be heard over those distances, are they entitled still to challenge the witnesses' evidence?
I'm not sure if I have made myself very clear there, maybe it's just too early in the day!
I think the initial reports were that the people hearing the shots were something like a kilometre away.... But that turned out to be incorrect and the distance had been measured by someone in a car, and wasn't a line of sight measurement. Bit of an own goal.At his bail hearing shortly after the incident, Pistorius' team poured scorn on the evidence of the officer who was initially in charge of the case about the police having witnesses who heard shots and screams that night, with the defence claiming they were much too far away.
Well, those witnesses have since given evidence in the case - one of them was the hospital consultant whose name escapes me at the moment - and one of them mentioned that they had heard shouting twice, once that night and once when the defence were conducting tests to see how far away noises from Pistorius' house could be heard, which sounds like a bit of an epic fail to me. I can't remember the prosecution presenting evidence to confirm that they could indeed have heard over that distance.
So - if the defence conducted those tests, and the shouting could indeed be heard over those distances, are they entitled still to challenge the witnesses' evidence?
I'm not sure if I have made myself very clear there, maybe it's just too early in the day!
Captain Ahab said:
Has her clothing been brought up yet ? ie in the accidentally released headshot photo she appears to be wearing a vest type top? if she was not in PJs / nightwear how could Pistorious claim she was in bed asleep?
The obvious answer is that she was sleeping in that vest type top. Seems entirely reasonable to me.ajl.
TheSnitch said:
10 Pence Short said:
Considering we have the body and OP admitting it was he who did the shooting, it has been he who needs to introduce the reasonable doubt, as the prima facie case looks strong.
Has he done enough to make you doubt he intended to shoot through that door, and that he knew his girlfriend was behind it?
I'm not so sure he has. Ironically, at the close of the prosecution I was less convinced of his guilt than after his taking the stand.
Same here. I didn't think much of him before he gave evidence, but it was a hell of a lot less by the time he finished.Has he done enough to make you doubt he intended to shoot through that door, and that he knew his girlfriend was behind it?
I'm not so sure he has. Ironically, at the close of the prosecution I was less convinced of his guilt than after his taking the stand.
There is one legal expert in particular who has been providing daily analysis, can't recall his name at the moment, but he explained that because Pistorius was the only person present at the time he really had to give evidence otherwise his version couldn't be tested under cross examination. I rather suspect his lawyers wish they hadn't had to. He gave the impression of not having been very well briefed, but I think perhaps it was a combination of the fact that he seems impossibly arrogant and that he seemed to be trying to make his ''version'' fit a pre-determined set of criteria
As so many wise counsel advise miscreants in criminal trials repeatedly never to "try to be clever in your testimony" time after time, such antics invariably ensure conviction. I do hope they will in this case.
KemP said:
toppstuff said:
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Good grief. When it is summarised, you can see how bad it looks ! Dixon as defence witness is an absolute joker. Do we know who else Roux plans to call? I know the next witness up is the chap from the estate management, if I have remembered correctly, but I am wondering where else he intends to go with this. The pathologist they commissioned has apparently declined to give evidence and it's difficult to see that he could have a ballistics expert, a medical expert, a trace evidence expert or a sound expert in his toolkit, otherwise he would not have introduced evidence on all those areas from an unqualified, non-expert dingbat like Dixon. He claimed earlier in the case that the defence would produce evidence to show Pistorius screamed like a girl. With the quality evidence which has gone before, I am expecting this to take the form of some mobile phone footage of the accused enbarrassing himself singing Maria Carey at a karaoke party, with expert analysis by Davey D, mobile DJ, weddings and birthdays a speciality. Or Louis Walsh.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff