Jump to content

Angry Oscar.


Park Life
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 277
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Big stuff this morning. The judge finally comes to life and rounds on the defence three or four times in regard to lines of questioning. The judges interjections on wordage and the def use of affidavids against the witness throw the def off their stride significantly. Judge at last breaks cover and bears her teeth. Not good for the defence. Witness sticks to guns regarding screams and shots.

If the def can't discredit the screaming then he goes down. Oscar for the first time looks a bit shaken sitting there.

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big stuff this morning. The judge finally comes to life and rounds on the defence three or four times in regard to lines of questioning. The judges interjections on wordage and the def use of affidavids against the witness throw the def off their stride significantly. Judge at last breaks cover and bears her teeth. Not good for the defence. Witness sticks to guns regarding screams and shots.

If the def can't discredit the screaming then he goes down. Oscar for the first time looks a bit shaken sitting there.

 

You're missing out the bits where the witness gives evidence that completely contradicts her original sworn affidavid and has to admit she's changed her version of events. It's a complete shambles this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would feel a bit uncomfortable sending a man down for murder on the basis of eye (ear?) witness testimony, it's so unreliable for many reasons and as much as it's been joked about a bit, I imagine if you had just accidentally shot your girlfriend then the scream/wail upon realising would be pretty high pitched and easily mistaken from a different house to be a woman's.

 

I'd guess the case depends on how solid the evidence about time between shots is more than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're missing out the bits where the witness gives evidence that completely contradicts her original sworn affidavid and has to admit she's changed her version of events. It's a complete shambles this morning.

You're in love with him innit?

 

She changed her mind later about wether she saw him walking aroung or not. The other bone of contention is wether the bathroom light was on or not...She stuck to her guns on that...Normal people under pressure mis-remember things and that is taken into account. What's his defence? He didn't warn his girlfriend someone was in the house...Didin't turn the lights on and started blasting away (contrary to his gun license legal justification to use lethal force) through a closed door cause he heard a 'noise'. He might as well move to Hollywood if he gets off this...Top crime writer in the making. ;)

None of it adds up. In situations of perceived danger the first thing you check is if your partner is safe and aware of what's happenning.

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Revealing text messages between the couple are read out in court by Captain Francois Moller, police mobile phone expert.

One from Steenkamp to Pistorius, sent on 19 January 2013, reads: "I am scared of you sometimes, how you snap at me and react to me"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.