Rue Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 BC I think what you are seeing is a primal fear and therefore morbid fascination with blood and therefore death and violence. I believe it is why there are so many more movies depicting violence then love and why we love contact sports. That blood causes us fear ,anxiety and a rush. Bull, cock, pit bull fighting, boxing, UFC, on and on. I believe it triggers off a gang frenzy or high at the sight of blood. We call that spectator sports but you see it in war and street riots, gang violence or one on one rape and other batteries. To me violence is as a primal weakness and we have to learn to repress it just as we have to learn to repress our violent tendencies period. I believe the same thing that makes us violent came in handy when we were all hunters or in danger of being eaten by predators or attacked by other primate packs for territory and breeding mates but today is for obvious reasons problematic. Today's alpha males become CEO's, athletes, and the guy who makes you his bitch in prison. This guy on trial is another Lance Armstrong or OJ or Michael Vick. He took himself seriously and became too inflated with self importance. Now he will end up in prison where he belongs and die of a bladder infection after being long forgotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 The police, much like the criminal justice system in South Africa is horrible. Anyone who thinks SA criminal justice system is competent is blowing smoke out their ass and didnt bother to check up on facts. http://www.issafrica.org/iss-today/the-problem-with-south-african-criminal-justice-performance-indicators Other tid bits? The door to the washroom.....sat in a cops office, anyone could see it and tamper with it. Result? Under investigation and cross examined, the cop could not tell anyone why there are marks on the door that werent there the night of the murder. Prosecution said he was in his prosthetics when he shot, of course there own expert witness said no, he was on his stumps. He may walk, and I can see why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Nancy Grace brings her hard-hitting brand of journalism to the Pistorius case! -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 The door to the washroom.....sat in a cops office, anyone could see it and tamper with it. Result? Under investigation and cross examined, the cop could not tell anyone why there are marks on the door that werent there the night of the murder. Prosecution said he was in his prosthetics when he shot, of course there own expert witness said no, he was on his stumps. He may walk, and I can see why. What difference do new marks on the door make? What difference does it make whether he was in his prosthetics or not? He fired multiple shots through a closed bathroom door and only a complete moron would doubt he knew his wife was inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 What difference do new marks on the door make?Oh ok...its called the chain of evidence and it is supposed to be very tight. The door has new marking s on it when viewed in court. That creates a huge hole for the Prosecution , it puts evidence into doubt. Ask OJ if he is glad evidence was contaminated? (well maybe not now since hes in a world of hurt but 10 yrs ago?) What difference does it make whether he was in his prosthetics or not?It goes to the defence saying he woke up heard noises and did something. So if he put his prothetics on , it goes to the Prosecutions idea that it was premeditated. Meaning he woke up, put them on , and went and shot her. But his stumps were bloody meaning he woke and moved around on his stumps. The same can be illustrated easily, if you wake up to screaming or some other major disturbance, including thinking a burglary/robbery is in progress Im thinking that taking your time to dress and tie up your shoes isnt something that will be done. He fired multiple shots through a closed bathroom door and only a complete moron would doubt he knew his wife was inside.No Q he fired the shots, but knowing his GF was in there isnt something I am ready to convict over. When the prosecution screws up this bad, I wont put any guarentees on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 After listening to the coverage of this case, I no longer think this is a slam dunk for the prosecution. On the other hand, this is to be determined by a judge and two associates. A jury may have come to the conclusion that there is doubt as to his guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Trial is back on today. After listening to Oscar's testimony on the stand, sounds like he took on a lot of his mother's anxiety when it comes to breakins. Could explain his paranoid actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Apparently dude got court adjourned today cuz he couldn't stop crying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Oh ok...its called the chain of evidence and it is supposed to be very tight. The door has new marking s on it when viewed in court. That creates a huge hole for the Prosecution , it puts evidence into doubt. How? Has he denied shooting through the door? Nope. Has he denied shooting four times through the door? Nope. Has he denied breaking down the door? Nope. So what exactly does the door tell us? It tells us someone shot through it four times then broke it. So what exactly is in doubt with regard to the door? So if he put his prothetics on , it goes to the Prosecutions idea that it was premeditated. Meaning he woke up, put them on , and went and shot her. But his stumps were bloody meaning he woke and moved around on his stumps. Again, so what? Either it was planned, which I doubt, or he was in an angry rage. Either way, he's guilty. No Q he fired the shots, but knowing his GF was in there isnt something I am ready to convict over. In order to believe his simply incredible story, you have to believe two virtually impossible things. The first thing is that on hearing a noise, he immediately grabbed his gun and jumped out of bed -- without even thinking to check his wife. Ridiculous. Absurd. You hear a strange noise, without even thinking about it, your head turns to the side to see if your partner is there. If she isn't, then no problem. And in almost all cases, the noise will be your partner, which is why this is so natural when two people live together alone. So you have to believe he not only did not instinctively check, but that as he got up and got his gun, he didn't even think to check. Ludicrous. The second impossible thing you have to believe, is that, now armed, he hurried to the bathroom and instantly, without calling out, fired multiple times through the door. Honestly, who does that? You've got a gun. The door is closed. You call out. You say something like "I've got a gun and the police have been called!". You don't blindly run up to the door and start shooting through it! He's as guilty as sin, and all his sniveling and bawling won't change the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 It will be interesting to hear more from him on cross. That's if he stops crying. Is his crying for himself or her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 I tend to agree. Since you would know even being disturbed from sleep that once you focused enough to recall where the gun is etc. you would also recall there are 2 of you in the house, so where's my partner? And even if you assume he was paranoid enough not to check her whereabouts first, hauling off and firing 4 quick rounds through the bathroom door would suggest guilt of "reckless homicide" as opposed to pre meditated, which I understand also exists in SA law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 couple of things, the door not being kept under lock and key can be dismissed by the court (doubt it will be) as it has been tainted. Second, he lives in S Africa, one of the most dangerous and violent places on earth, especially for a wealthy guy. DO I think he is guilty? Pretty much but not convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 I assume that the South African legal system is the same as ours where all that is required for an acquittal is a "reasonable doubt". It does not take much to present a "reasonable doubt." Besides, what is reasonable to one is not necessarily reasonable to another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 I assume that the South African legal system is the same as ours where all that is required for an acquittal is a "reasonable doubt". It does not take much to present a "reasonable doubt." Besides, what is reasonable to one is not necessarily reasonable to another. And what is reasonable to a jury could be quite different to what is reasonable to a judge and 2 associates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 And what is reasonable to a jury could be quite different to what is reasonable to a judge and 2 associates. I fully agree!! So, does a small group of 3 people educated in the finer points of law present a better chance of acquittal for Oscar than would a group of 12 who are prone to emotional responses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 I fully agree!! So, does a small group of 3 people educated in the finer points of law present a better chance of acquittal for Oscar than would a group of 12 who are prone to emotional responses? That has been my question all along! I am so very curious as to the judges findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Many years ago, when I was still working for a living, I had been selected twice for a jury duty pool in Toronto. I had been chosen as a potential jury member on 3 different criminal trials. I was challenged and rejected by the prosecution in all cases. Later it was explained to me by a friend in the legal profession that it was my background in education that made the prosecution wary. She told me that it is perceived that people in certain professions have a tendency to be more "pragmatic", unemotional and analytical in their decision making. Consequently, they tended to find more "reasonable doubts" that favoured the defense. So I've been told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Well, the trial is back on and will likely wrap up next week. I don't think this is a slam dunk for the prosecution due to Oscar's oscar winning performance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Did I recently hear a report that the defense may opt for an insanity plea or am I dreaming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 yes, you are sort of right. I heard today that the prosecutors want him evaluated by psychiatrists, due to his anxiety levels. Twists and turns in this trial! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Looks like his verdict will be delivered tomorrow by judge and no jury. It is interesting the way the verdict will be delivered: The Judge must show why she and her two legal advisors reached their decisions. She will give a summary of each of the 37 witnesses and give her assessment of each witness and what was accepted and rejected. It could lead into Friday as well. It is an interesting legal process and unlike anything I have seen in Canada. Edited September 11, 2014 by WestCoastRunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 WestCoastRunner, on 10 Sept 2014 - 8:24 PM, said: Looks like his verdict will be delivered tomorrow by judge and no jury. It is interesting the way the verdict will be delivered: The Judge must show why she and her two legal advisors reached their decisions. She will give a summary of each of the 37 witnesses and give her assessment of each witness and what was accepted and rejected. It could lead into Friday as well. It is an interesting legal process and unlike anything I have seen in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 The guy is guilty as sin - lock him up and throw away the key! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 I can't quite get my head around how he would grab the gun from under the bed without making sure where she was, or at least was not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 I can't quite get my head around how he would grab the gun from under the bed without making sure where she was, or at least was not. I agree, however, there is no jury. Will the judge ask the same questions as you and I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.