Oscar Pistorius

[Florentine_Pogen]

If he does get jail he surely won't be allowed have prosthetic legs, they could be used as a weapon so the poor c**t will be walking around on his stumps.

Still, the scumbag deserves it. Accident my arse.

Get him some stabilisers.

[Scary Bear]

Where did he say she did ? He was just answering the question. What a strange response.

Are you new to P&B? Strange responses are the norm. Especially in the General Nonsense Forum. HTH.

[cmontheloknow]

Watched a few hours on and off this morning - his story is all over the place.

Bearing in mind the layout of his bedroom...

His version:

He heard a noise in the bathroom. Assumed it was a burglar who had used a ladder to climb into the bathroom. Gently told Reeva (who he thought was in bed) to get down low and phone the police. Did not tell her to get out the bedroom. Did not go out the bedroom as the tiles outside it are awkward for him on stumps. Shouted as he entered the passageway leading to the bathroom. Heard no response. Crept up to the bathroom slowly and quietly so as not to give away his position. Half expected to be shot at from round the door. Head the toilet door slam shut. When in the bathroom, window clearly open. Assumed the burglar was either shut in the bathroom or had gone out the toilet window. No voices came from the toilet - this may be, he said, because Reeva was frightened of the burglar or she assumed OP was out of earshot. When a few metres away from the toilet door heard a noise (wood sounding did he say?) and assumed it was a threat. Fired four times. Ears ringing, heard no screams.

There was a great deal of focus on a pair of jeans that OP says were draped over a stereo to block out an LCD light. These were found slightly on top of the duvet (a photo was blown up to show this though defence rejected that conclusion). OP maintains the police moved the duvet, a fan and the jeans in the bedroom. OP was also questioned about the time he was shot at on a highway and why it was never reported. He couldn't recall who he had told this to or who collected him from wherever he parked up thereafter. There was also a line of questioning relating to whether or not the sensors outside the house worked or not. OP thought (I think) they may have been non-functioning since his house was repainted 3 years before the shooting but he was not aware of any malfunction of his security system.

[Honest_Man#1]

I saw some of this last night on TV and I was astonished at how abrasively, snarkily and generally inappropriately he was behaving. Had it been a jury trial, frankly they'd have had to have discharged them because the way he went about questioning Pistorious was irrelevant, abusive and misleading. He was trying to break him emotionally in a way that goes beyond free testimony and into bullying. I am amazed he got away with it, notwithstanding being reprimanded a couple of times by the judge.

His whole demeanour certainly didn't show any regard for the gravity of the situation and made a circus of the event in a way which disrespects the family of the deceased.

ETA: to be clear, I'm talking about the prosecutor.

I know nothing about how lawyers are supposed to conduct themselves in court but I thought this as well. He seemed to be trying to emotionally grind him down to the point if breakdown tbh.

[Ad Lib]

Pretty unlikely that his girlfriend posed a threat to life. How big is his fucking bed that he thought she was still in it?

Still, good to see you've come round to the idea of blowing burglars away in self defence. However, in this case I suspect if he'd 'strongly advised' the 'person' to come out the bathroom, instead of blazing away at the toilet door, he may still have a live and kicking tidy girlfriend.

I haven't come round to anything. I'm explaining the significance in law of intentions and the nature of the defence he is claiming.

[doulikefish]

Oscar said "he didnt mean to kill anyone" yip shooting 4 times is really trying not to kill

[Dee Man]

I know nothing about how lawyers are supposed to conduct themselves in court but I thought this as well. He seemed to be trying to emotionally grind him down to the point if breakdown tbh.

Possibly to make him admit his guilt in a moment of weakness?

I don't know why folk are so shocked about the prosecution lawyer's style. If it was my daughter that had been shot and I was paying a lawyer a fortune, I would be wanting him to be giving the c**t the hardest time possible no matter how much he was sobbing or protesting his innocence.

My only surprise is that he spent so much time on the first day telling Pistorius to admit he killed her and take some responsibility despite the fact he'd spent the entire previous day doing just that.

Surely he'd have been better getting him to admit his guilt of deliberately murdering her.

Either way, I reckon the judge has already taken pity on him and will let him walk. So to speak.

[BossHogg]

I know nothing about how lawyers are supposed to conduct themselves in court but I thought this as well. He seemed to be trying to emotionally grind him down to the point if breakdown tbh.

As long as he isn't breaking any guidelines in his questioning he can be as abresive and aggressive as he wants.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Possibly to make him admit his guilt in a moment of weakness?

I don't know why folk are so shocked about the prosecution lawyer's style. If it was my daughter that had been shot and I was paying a lawyer a fortune, I would be wanting him to be giving the c**t the hardest time possible no matter how much he was sobbing or protesting his innocence.

My only surprise is that he spent so much time on the first day telling Pistorius to admit he killed her and take some responsibility despite the fact he'd spent the entire previous day doing just that.

Surely he'd have been better getting him to admit his guilt of deliberately murdering her.

Either way, I reckon the judge has already taken pity on him and will let him walk. So to speak.

He's the prosecution, so the state are paying. His job is to establish the facts.

[Ad Lib]

Possibly to make him admit his guilt in a moment of weakness?

I don't know why folk are so shocked about the prosecution lawyer's style. If it was my daughter that had been shot and I was paying a lawyer a fortune, I would be wanting him to be giving the c**t the hardest time possible no matter how much he was sobbing or protesting his innocence.

My only surprise is that he spent so much time on the first day telling Pistorius to admit he killed her and take some responsibility despite the fact he'd spent the entire previous day doing just that.

Surely he'd have been better getting him to admit his guilt of deliberately murdering her.

Either way, I reckon the judge has already taken pity on him and will let him walk. So to speak.

The point is some of us believe in free testimony and that defendants have a right not to incriminate themselves, and that bullying and barracking, irrelevant questioning significantly undermines that.

[Dee Man]

He's the prosecution, so the state are paying. His job is to establish the facts.

And surely by whatever means necessary to establish the facts? A softly, softly approach will get him nowhere.

I reckon most folk on here are shocked at his style due to never having been involved in a high-profile courtroom murder case. I don't imagine it's ever a stroll in the park for the accused.

[Dee Man]

The point is some of us believe in free testimony and that defendants have a right not to incriminate themselves, and that bullying and barracking, irrelevant questioning significantly undermines that.

I might not be understanding your point correctly, but how could a defendant incriminate themselves under any level of questioning/bullying if they are innocent and have one story to stick to?

[Sergeant Wilson]

And surely by whatever means necessary to establish the facts? A softly, softly approach will get him nowhere.

I reckon most folk on here are shocked at his style due to never having been involved in a high-profile courtroom murder case. I don't imagine it's ever a stroll in the park for the accused.

Probably not, but questioning and examination of the evidence will decide the outcome, not smart remarks for the cameras.

[Dee Man]

Probably not, but questioning and examination of the evidence will decide the outcome, not smart remarks for the cameras.

Aye, there's definitely some playing up from the cameras from him. He laughed in mock disbelief at one of Pistorius' answers yesterday to which some of the gallery joined in. The judge told him to cut it out and reminded the gallery it's "not entertainment". Speak for yourself, m'lady.

[DA Baracus]

Aye, there's definitely some playing up from the cameras from him. He laughed in mock disbelief at one of Pistorius' answers yesterday to which some of the gallery joined in. The judge told him to cut it out and reminded the gallery it's "not entertainment". Speak for yourself, m'lady.

If they really thought that then they shouldn't be filming the fucking thing. There's probably guy selling beer and hotdogs like at baseball games. I'm sure you can guy those big foam fingers as well. I heard you buy ones with 'GUILTY' and 'INNOCENT' on them. In fact, this is how all juries should cast their vote in all cases.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Vuvuzelas?

[Dee Man]

If they really thought that then they shouldn't be filming the fucking thing. There's probably guy selling beer and hotdogs like at baseball games. I'm sure you can guy those big foam fingers as well. I heard you buy ones with 'GUILTY' and 'INNOCENT' on them. In fact, this is how all juries should cast their vote in all cases.

I hope there's a woman outside ready to release a basket full of white doves when the not guilty verdict is read out.

[a1974h]

He has been flapping like f**k today, for a while I thought it was going to be another OJ Simpson trial but I now think he is going down. Weasel

[DA Baracus]

I hope there's a woman outside ready to release a basket full of white doves when the not guilty verdict is read out.

I'm pretty sure she gets hired for all the high profile cases. She's paid on a 'no win, no fee' basis I believe.

[Ad Lib]

I might not be understanding your point correctly, but how could a defendant incriminate themselves under any level of questioning/bullying if they are innocent and have one story to stick to?

I'll give you the extreme example: torture. People can be coerced and/or bullied into saying things which they a) did not intend to say and b) may not in fact have done.

This is why we courts value procedural propriety. This is why the way defence lawyers cross-examine rape victims is often considered to be inappropriate. Barracking a witness or the accused actively undermines the fundamental right they have to maintain their innocence and to protect themselves from false accusation. This is why, for instance, the US permits defendants to "plead the fifth".