Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
Discussion
Mermaid said:
Televised on Sky? Channel number?
Watching the feed here: http://www.news24.com/Multimedia/Video/SouthAfrica...KTF said:
Mermaid said:
Televised on Sky? Channel number?
Watching the feed here: http://www.news24.com/Multimedia/Video/SouthAfrica...TTmonkey said:
Don't. Forget that OP has already denied several times intending to kill anyone. He said in evidence that the gun went off unintentionally. He said he didn't shoot to kill anyone, not Reva and not a burglar. He's contradicted his own evidence that he fired intentionally due to feeling threatened.
In law, he cannot claim self defence because objectively there was no no evidence that he was under direct threat.He therefore claimed he thought he thought that his life was under threat ie putative self defence. He then contradicted himself under cross examination by saying that the gun went off accidentally which is when the prosecutor repeatedly asked whether he was changing his defence. His lawyer would have been cringing.
His fundamental legal mistake was making statements/affidavits during his bail hearing(s)for many different legal reasons and I suspect he did so against his legal advice because no defence attorney worth anything would have allowed him to do that.
On another note, someone mentioned that for some reason it appears that the post mortem was not part of the official court exhibits and I can find evidence of that either way. if it was omitted that would be a serious deviation from normal procedure.
Also it appears that the police did not use luminol presumably because he admitted to shooting her but same person suggested that there was not much in the way of bloody footprints from the bathroom to downstairs - is this true?
arguti said:
TTmonkey said:
Don't. Forget that OP has already denied several times intending to kill anyone. He said in evidence that the gun went off unintentionally. He said he didn't shoot to kill anyone, not Reva and not a burglar. He's contradicted his own evidence that he fired intentionally due to feeling threatened.
In law, he cannot claim self defence because objectively there was no no evidence that he was under direct threat.He therefore claimed he thought he thought that his life was under threat ie putative self defence. He then contradicted himself under cross examination by saying that the gun went off accidentally which is when the prosecutor repeatedly asked whether he was changing his defence. His lawyer would have been cringing.
His fundamental legal mistake was making statements/affidavits during his bail hearing(s)for many different legal reasons and I suspect he did so against his legal advice because no defence attorney worth anything would have allowed him to do that.
On another note, someone mentioned that for some reason it appears that the post mortem was not part of the official court exhibits and I can find evidence of that either way. if it was omitted that would be a serious deviation from normal procedure.
Also it appears that the police did not use luminol presumably because he admitted to shooting her but same person suggested that there was not much in the way of bloody footprints from the bathroom to downstairs - is this true?
So he is selling up his property to cover legal costs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/osc...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/osc...
Lost soul said:
So he is selling up his property to cover legal costs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/osc...
The en-suite might need some work doing to it http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/osc...
KTF said:
Lost soul said:
So he is selling up his property to cover legal costs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/osc...
The en-suite might need some work doing to it http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/osc...
KTF said:
Silent1 said:
What's going on right now, an argument over committing him to a psychiatric unit?
If the court agrees then I think OPs legal bill just increased a lot.Interesting how he seems to have turned one of OPs experts against OP.
There is a nice summary and running commentary here:
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/...
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/...
Apparently he has a fight response in stead of flat response according to his laywer.Due to his disabilities.This trial is more bizarre by the day.
He will get off due to a mental disorder the way the trial is going.He used illegal bullets making sure anybody he shot would have been killed.
You have to feel sorry for Reeva's parents who have to listen to this lying peace of S.
He will get off due to a mental disorder the way the trial is going.He used illegal bullets making sure anybody he shot would have been killed.
You have to feel sorry for Reeva's parents who have to listen to this lying peace of S.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff