Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
Discussion
photosnob said:
W
Also would you call your mum and inform her as soon as you have done the deed?
So you know for sure they slept together?Hilts said:
How do you know?
Do you sleep in the same bed as someone on Valentine's Day, send them cards saying you love them and not engage in anything more that kissing and cuddling?Also would you call your mum and inform her as soon as you have done the deed?
Hilts said:
So you know for sure they slept together?
No but it's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to. It's hardly a slur is it...How many none religious people do you know who would sleep together on Valentine's Day and not engage in anything more than petting? They weren't 13 years old...
photosnob said:
Hilts said:
So you know for sure they slept together?
No but it's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to. It's hardly a slur is it...How many none religious people do you know who would sleep together on Valentine's Day and not engage in anything more than petting? They weren't 13 years old...
Hilts said:
So you don't know then.
How do you know anything? If you are going to keep asking inane and stupid questions then you have to wonder what point you are trying to prove. There are very few things you can know. No one knows if he meant to kill her, no one knows anything unless they have seen or experiences it. Even then there is the possibility that it was an illusion or mind trick, so in reality we can't know anything.
More importantly - why do you care about knowing so much? What problem have you got with people drawing perfectly reasonable and logical conclusions?
photosnob said:
No but it's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to. It's hardly a slur is it...
How many none religious people do you know who would sleep together on Valentine's Day and not engage in anything more than petting? They weren't 13 years old...
You think all couples on Valentines Day get it on regardless?How many none religious people do you know who would sleep together on Valentine's Day and not engage in anything more than petting? They weren't 13 years old...
photosnob said:
Hilts said:
So you don't know then.
How do you know anything? If you are going to keep asking inane and stupid questions then you have to wonder what point you are trying to prove. There are very few things you can know. No one knows if he meant to kill her, no one knows anything unless they have seen or experiences it. Even then there is the possibility that it was an illusion or mind trick, so in reality we can't know anything.
More importantly - why do you care about knowing so much? What problem have you got with people drawing perfectly reasonable and logical conclusions?
I'm not the one professing to know anything. All I asked were a few simple questions which you don't have the answers to.
All you have are conclusions.
KTF said:
You think all couples on Valentines Day get it on regardless?
I think most mid 20s none religious, healthy and fit people do especially if they have been seeing each other for months and are sharing the bed. Do you date people for months, send cards saying you love the person and share the bed and not engage in anything other than dry humping? More importantly do you know many people who do?
photosnob said:
Hilts said:
So you don't know then.
How do you know anything? If you are going to keep asking inane and stupid questions then you have to wonder what point you are trying to prove. There are very few things you can know. No one knows if he meant to kill her, no one knows anything unless they have seen or experiences it. Even then there is the possibility that it was an illusion or mind trick, so in reality we can't know anything.
More importantly - why do you care about knowing so much? What problem have you got with people drawing perfectly reasonable and logical conclusions?
Having followed this from the beginning and drawn my own conclusion which is in the 'justice has not been served' camp, I feel that in spite of everything maybe a line should be drawn under this and all concerned move on.
My reasons... The trial was a farce. Witnesses on both sides were seen to be unreliable and some, so called professionals totally inept.
So many, seemingly vital bits of testimony, evidence, were brushed aside or ignored totally.
The court was laughable...A possible murder trial having happy birthday to the judge acclamations . Endless tea breaks in the middle of important procedures. Delays, adjournments for no obvious reasons.
Poor lawyers on both sides in spite of 'Bull dog' Nell being lauded as the next Perry Mason/Rumpole.
The family, having shown great character throughout the trial now seemingly publishing versions of events that cannot possibly be substantiated (without phone text logs). All hindsight
OP showing not one iota of genuine remorse.
What possible use will come of dragging all this up again?
Some will say justice, but I feel that has long passed being a viable conclusion.
We will see, but I have my doubts.
My reasons... The trial was a farce. Witnesses on both sides were seen to be unreliable and some, so called professionals totally inept.
So many, seemingly vital bits of testimony, evidence, were brushed aside or ignored totally.
The court was laughable...A possible murder trial having happy birthday to the judge acclamations . Endless tea breaks in the middle of important procedures. Delays, adjournments for no obvious reasons.
Poor lawyers on both sides in spite of 'Bull dog' Nell being lauded as the next Perry Mason/Rumpole.
The family, having shown great character throughout the trial now seemingly publishing versions of events that cannot possibly be substantiated (without phone text logs). All hindsight
OP showing not one iota of genuine remorse.
What possible use will come of dragging all this up again?
Some will say justice, but I feel that has long passed being a viable conclusion.
We will see, but I have my doubts.
photosnob said:
No but it's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to. It's hardly a slur is it...
How many none religious people do you know who would sleep together on Valentine's Day and not engage in anything more than petting? They weren't 13 years old...
You mention "none religious" persons. She was a Christian.How many none religious people do you know who would sleep together on Valentine's Day and not engage in anything more than petting? They weren't 13 years old...
Pints said:
photosnob said:
No but it's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to. It's hardly a slur is it...
How many none religious people do you know who would sleep together on Valentine's Day and not engage in anything more than petting? They weren't 13 years old...
You mention "none religious" persons. She was a Christian.How many none religious people do you know who would sleep together on Valentine's Day and not engage in anything more than petting? They weren't 13 years old...
lady topaz said:
Having followed this from the beginning and drawn my own conclusion which is in the 'justice has not been served' camp, I feel that in spite of everything maybe a line should be drawn under this and all concerned move on.
My reasons... The trial was a farce. Witnesses on both sides were seen to be unreliable and some, so called professionals totally inept.
So many, seemingly vital bits of testimony, evidence, were brushed aside or ignored totally.
The court was laughable...A possible murder trial having happy birthday to the judge acclamations . Endless tea breaks in the middle of important procedures. Delays, adjournments for no obvious reasons.
Poor lawyers on both sides in spite of 'Bull dog' Nell being lauded as the next Perry Mason/Rumpole.
Yep. Piss poor show in many respects.My reasons... The trial was a farce. Witnesses on both sides were seen to be unreliable and some, so called professionals totally inept.
So many, seemingly vital bits of testimony, evidence, were brushed aside or ignored totally.
The court was laughable...A possible murder trial having happy birthday to the judge acclamations . Endless tea breaks in the middle of important procedures. Delays, adjournments for no obvious reasons.
Poor lawyers on both sides in spite of 'Bull dog' Nell being lauded as the next Perry Mason/Rumpole.
The round of applause for the judge was just UNBELIEVABLE.
t house door 
agtlaw said:
Is anyone here well versed in South African criminal procedure?
- Is leave to appeal required for the appeal against sentence and or conviction?
- If the appeal against conviction is successful then can the appellate court substitute another verdict, or must it order a retrial? Would the double jeopardy doctrine not apply in the circumstances of this case?
The prosecution present their argument (Appeal) to Judge Masipa. She will review and must give leave for the Appeal to proceed. If she does not, they appeal to the Supreme Court. If an Appeal is allowed, a panel of judges reviews the existing evidence and makes a call on the verdict and sentence. There is no retrial, just a review. That is my understanding- Is leave to appeal required for the appeal against sentence and or conviction?
- If the appeal against conviction is successful then can the appellate court substitute another verdict, or must it order a retrial? Would the double jeopardy doctrine not apply in the circumstances of this case?
burwoodman said:
There is no retrial, just a review. That is my understanding
I reckon that's absolutely right. In a controversial trial, and bearing in mind they don't use a jury, it must be quite likely leave to appeal will be granted. I don't think anything will change though in terms of outcome for the trigger-happy athlete.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff