Pistorius trial

[Topcat]

He has a mouth like a cats bumhole.

[Savannah]

I think he's quite attractive. His good looks swayed into believing/hoping he wasn't guilty

[Bastian]

I've always thought he was dead handsome, but there is a sneer around the mouth - which I had noticed before this dreadfulness.

He sounds so horrible. SO, so horrible

[Sky]

I think he's quite attractive. His good looks swayed into believing/hoping he wasn't guilty

Yeah :shame: I'd probably have pronounced him guilty months ago had he been ugly. I think very likely is guilty though.

[Shoe]

Yeah, I think he's very hot, but also probably a weapons grade dick by the sounds of it.

[Disco]

I'd never heard of him before this but hated his mealy mouth from the second I saw it. Therefore I conclude guilty.

[Dáire]

The prosecution just handed some more own goals to the defence.

Forensics guy, Vermuelen, was asked about a higher up mark on the door. Pistorious says he didn't have his legs on when he shot (both sides and ballistics agree this), but put them on to break down the door - he initially tried to kick it down, but couldn't get it open so then got the bat. The prosecution claim he attacked the door with the bat without the legs in the jealous frenzy.

So the high mark matters - it'd prove he had the legs on when using the bat. Vermuelen showed the other day that bat marks were low, indicating he wasn't on the legs, but the defence says he was on them and just striking low, with a bent back, towards the lock.

The higher marks on the door? Vermuelen says he hasn't had time to check the higher mark against the bat.

He also hasn't had time to test the sounds of bats on doors and of gunshots at the distances the witnesses heard, to confirm their accounts.

He also hasn't had time to investigate the shoe marks on the door that would support Pistorious' claim to have attempted kicking it down first.

If he's guilty, it's going to be very hard to get a murder conviction based on this kind of half-assery. The prosecution aren't exactly erasing 'reasonable doubt'.

[Bastian]

Alright, Ironside.

[Minkie]

Alright, Ironside.

:lol:

[Topcat]

[lazzikins!]

Honestly, I am totally bemused by your take on it and your apparent expertise. What evidence would you think borders on the inadmissible?! So far they have found evidence/witnesses which support that she screamed before and during the gunshots; that she wasn't asleep before the gunshots; that she was scared of how he turned on her and snapped at her; that he knew about gun protocol, firing warning shots and had previously woken/alerted partners when he was concerned about security. That's plenty of shiz for now. And cross-examination is always key.

Anyway, I'm no Miss Marple so won't go on.

[smalex]

:lol:

I am confused also, in the manner Lazzi describes. One of the ear-witnesses sounded a bit iffy, but everything else has sounded pretty reasonable to me.

[Lucy666]

Alright, Ironside.

[Dáire]

Honestly, I am totally bemused by your take on it and your apparent expertise. What evidence would you think borders on the inadmissible?! So far they have found evidence/witnesses which support that she screamed before and during the gunshots; that she wasn't asleep before the gunshots; that she was scared of how he turned on her and snapped at her; that he knew about gun protocol, firing warning shots and had previously woken/alerted partners when he was concerned about security. That's plenty of shiz for now. And cross-examination is always key.

See, I agree they put forth that evidence but I just don't see that it's particularly solid. The witness was half a mile away and claimed she listened to all this screaming, which she claims to think were murders taking place, and didn't call the police. The autopsy showed damage to such an extent she couldn't have screamed after she was shot, so the witnesses recollections don't seem to add up. The other witness was her husband, and after they used similar turns of phrase they were accused of working out their story together. They could both be totally honest and correct, it just damages their testimony. The guard's account isn't backed up by phone records and the other witness was this forensics dude who's shown he only looked at the bits which supported the prosecution. Basically the prosecution has a body and a text message.

I wish I thought he was guilty now, I'd look less of a loser :lol: There'll be holes poked in the defence then I'll change my mind.

[nick]

He has a mouth like a cats bumhole.

Irrefutable proof of guilt.

The defence has nothing. He has been shown to be an insecure, jealous, controlling guy with a love of guns and a very short temper. The story about intruders is total bollocks. "I went out for a fan... didn't look for my girlfriend... thought there was an intruder... ".
The defence is all if, but, possibly, can we really be sure, on the other hand.

Guilty!

Next.

[lazzikins!]

The witness was half a mile away and claimed she listened to all this screaming, which she claims to think were murders taking place, and didn't call the police.

The last witness they got to corroborate was 72m away. And there was corroboration from various - it's not one person who's come up with a tale.

But yes, come round to my point of view in time, pliz. :))

[la Fée Verte]

I'm still not sure what I actually think about this, but I can't see how it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was intentional murder. Whether or not you suspect he's lying or is fishy or whatever, no-one's going to throw down some amazing piece of evidence to swing it either way, are they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26966918" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Livilla]

Lazzi, I haven't been following this very closely, but some of the evidence you have mentioned would almost certainly have been inadmissible in a jury trial in the UK.

[Lily]

This is very uncomfortable listening/reading. He's obviously destroyed by what he did, and I believe his remorse is genuine. But I felt very awkward hearing about how he claims he tried to protect her.

Surely he will be jailed for something, it just depends whether it's murder or manslaughter?

As an aside I really don't like this "live tweeting" nonsense; surely you can't be online/on your phone in a court room?

[Sky]

I'm uncomfortable with the fact he will be convicted by just one judge and no jury. Won't the judge have his own opinions regardless of what evidence there is?