Oscar Pistorius thread

Can someone clear something up? Is one of the charges he is facing now relating to him owning illegal ammunition? I saw a quote earlier from him saying something along the lines of "I interpreted the law as been able to look after it for someone else (belonged to his dad)......didn't intend on using it". So if that is the case; it wasn't his ammo, he was just looking after it for his dad, he didn't intend to use it and yet his girlfriend end up with 4 of them. He denies the charge.

I think I may be missing something or that's a **** poor defence.
 
ShakenNstirred said:
He is laying it on abit to thick for my liking, to much head in hands and crying, not to mention being sick in court


Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
Click to expand...

Conversely, I was quite shocked by the manner of the questioning from Gerrie Nel today. Take this (shortened) clip on the BBC website for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26953412

Nel tries to get Oscar to look at the photo of Reeva's dead body, repeatedly asking him to "accept responsibility" and "you killed a person that's what you did"...repeating the same question over and over "you shot and killed her"..."say it, say 'I shot Reeva Steenkamp'".

What relevance is this to the case exactly? Pistorius has already admitted shooting and killing her many times; being told repeatedly to look at the photo of her despite it being shown in evidence many times before; they just seem like exercises in showboating. How is this relevant in pursuing the course of justice?

I have zero experience in any kind of judicial system, but that just seems like inappropriate language and irrelevant questioning to me and not befitting of a case like this.

Hence why I fully understand Pistorius' frustration when he replies with "I've taken responsibility… but I will not look at a picture where I am tormented by what I saw and felt that night... I remember. I don't have to look at a picture, I was there."
 
Last edited:
Given Nel's track record in winning prosecutions, I'd say he knows what he's doing irrespective of our assessment on whether its relevant or not.
Subjecting the defence to this kind of pressure is common I'd imagine.

Gerrie Nel is known for his no-nonsense attitude inside the courtroom and is one of South Africa's most respected legal minds.

With more than 30 years' experience he has a string of successful prosecutions under his belt and is no stranger to high-profile cases. He prosecuted former police boss and Interpol's ex-head Jackie Selebi on corruption charges, once calling him an "arrogant liar" during cross examination.

Those who know him praise his meticulous attention to detail and his "fearlessness". He was junior prosecutor in the murder case of anti-apartheid activist Chris Hani in 1993.
Click to expand...
Src:BBC News
 
so he was shouting out to the "burglar" to get out of his house. Why didnt she just say "its me taking a dump, try not to shoot me in the head darling" Cant really believe he was screaming and shouting and she just stayed silent.
 
FlamBango said:
so he was shouting out to the "burglar" to get out of his house. Why didnt she just say "its me taking a dump, try not to shoot me in the head darling" Cant really believe he was screaming and shouting and she just stayed silent.
Click to expand...

She may have kept quite because she thought there was an intruder in the house, was completely undefended and didn't want to give away her position. She may not have realised that he thought she was the intruder,
 
The prosecutor is certainly having an easy time of this. Pistorius really does come across as someone who is never in the wrong and everyone else is at fault/lying.

Jack McCoy would have wrapped this up in 30 mins.
 
I don't understand why this is trial is still going on? He has taken admitted responsibility for the death. Why do we need all these other pieces of evidence like cricket bats and doors, various gun shots being fired. Is it to determine his length of sentence? Yes i am ignorant and have no idea about law.
 
Bassmansam said:
I don't understand why this is trial is still going on? He has taken admitted responsibility for the death. Why do we need all these other pieces of evidence like cricket bats and doors, various gun shots being fired. Is it to determine his length of sentence? Yes i am ignorant and have no idea about law.
Click to expand...

I'ts whether he is actually guilty or murder or not. Everybody knows he killed her, he has admitted such.

If he isn't found guilty of murder (i.e. a premeditated killing) then he will be found guilty, no doubt, of other charges such as culpable homicide or manslaughter, which carry lesser sentences.
 
Bassmansam said:
I don't understand why this is trial is still going on? He has taken admitted responsibility for the death. Why do we need all these other pieces of evidence like cricket bats and doors, various gun shots being fired. Is it to determine his length of sentence? Yes i am ignorant and have no idea about law.
Click to expand...

There are several things he's been charged with aside from the murder charge,

The state also has to prove it was murder and not an accident - we all know he killed her, but the state has to prove he did it deliberately, as opposed to OP's claim that it was an accident (mistaken intruder)
 
I dont quite know why they are prosecuting all the charges at once, its a bit of a mish mash to follow jumping from one thing to another. Surely focusing on one at a time would have been better?

Any case, I dont think (so far) that the prosecution have done anything to prove that he intended to do it (murder) rather than it be accidental.

Personally I think he'll walk for the big one, and get heavy fines/house arrest for the others. I'd be surprised if he actually got put away.
 
deuse said:
He is as guilty as sin.
Click to expand...

Of what? Killing her? yea sure, but we knew that.

Murder? Not so sure, and unless something drastic happens (i.e. confession), I'd be surprised if the prosecution can prove this.

Their case seems to be nothing more than pressure tactics & a smear campaign at the moment.
 
Last edited:
"The marks on the door are actually consistent with him not having his legs on and I suspect they must be similar to the height that he was when he fired the shots," he told the court"

So he saw her on the bed but when he came back he never noticed she was not there?
And he said he was standing but the evidence shows he wasn't.
 
What are you smoking, StooM?

It's already been established his version of the events is a lie, through the testimonies of several witnesses. He was even caught lying on the stand when the prosecutor asked if he's familiar with the term "zombie stopper" to which he replied he wasn't, followed by a video in which he is heard using the term. The prosecution doesn't need to prove he intended to kill her, just that he didn't mistake her for a burglar. When all other possibilities are eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

There's no need for a confession, the case against him is solid.
 
Zethor said:
He was even caught lying on the stand when the prosecutor asked if he's familiar with the term "zombie stopper" to which he replied he wasn't, followed by a video in which he is heard using the term.
Click to expand...

So he should have remembered that throw away comment from months/years ago? What are YOU smoking? I'm neither for or against him but that's ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom