Given not only the Gravity of this case but the worldwide interest makes you wonder
why he thought a "joke" like that would be acceptable. That's my main issue with M'lady okay she's been harsh on the slips in Coverage but this is fast becoming a circus with a few sideshows going on. If this really is the calibre of his so called Experts maybe a review of these experts is needed. (if that is even possible).
I just wonder if OP's team will be using this break going through the list and wondering who else is going to flounder like this Guy.
Oh my goodness I can finally post! I've been lurking for a while and completely addicted to this thread, let alone the trial!
So... now I can post, of course I'm a bit overwhelmed and anyway I've missed the boat (for two weeks anyway )
Random thoughts that I wanted to post along the way...
OP says he screams like a girl... if he does go to prison, there's every chance that will be tested to the full
If he ends up on house arrest I'll be incensed. He'll continue to live a pampered life surrounded and supported by equally deluded relatives but he won't be let out to play with guns any more. But no doubt he will get to play with virtual ones and shoot plenty of zombies. I wish I could be under house arrest, beats going out to work for a living!
I do think he's going to prison though. I really can't quite believe he isn't there now, bail always seemed to me to be an outrageous mistake. He's clearly irresponsible to the point of being a grave and continued danger to others, even if he didn't commit murder.
I'm still wavering between murder in a fit of rage and thinking he may have been so deluded as to think firing bullets through the door would scare Reeva witless but not actually kill her.
I don't know if this would fit everything but maybe they argued, Reeva goes to put her jeans on and get ready to walk out on him, he gets nasty and aggressive, rips the jeans off her, she storms off to the loo and actually does get to have a wee, he grabs his gun and fires through the door to scare her, realises she's been hit, is panicked out of rage and then everything from there is him realising the full horror of what he's done.
Can anyone clear up a question about the bin bags... I've been looking but can't find the facts. Someone in an earlier post mentioned that he might, for a fleeting moment, have thought about disposing of the body - chilling thought, but could he have got the bin bags in that moment, then when witnesses were there used them to stem the bleeding?
Ok sorry for the blithering! So glad I can post now, thanks to everyone for the links and the smiles and the updates.
I've seen it suggested that money is an issue for the defence (although I find that unlikely). Or they couldn't get anyone else or someone from the defence cocked it up by trying to take shortcuts. Someone also said that the defence does have other expert witnesses, which makes one ask 'Why have Roger Radish at all?'
I can't see that it's money either.
And it's very confusing why Dixon was there. Especially as they were supposed to have some 'dream team' and 'Evidence Room' animation and all sorts.
Strange. Except that there may be a lot of problems for these experts actually finding anything conclusive to support OPs version perhaps. Especially now it's changed again, although I would have thought they would just go with what they have.
After all, OP is known to be a liar, that ship has sailed, and they could just take no notice of what he said. They'll have to I think.
Does anyone know if it's really true that OP already had a new girlfriend before the trial? I remember reading in the papers and found it odd that he had moved on so quickly.
Given not only the Gravity of this case but the worldwide interest makes you wonder
why he thought a "joke" like that would be acceptable. That's my main issue with M'lady okay she's been harsh on the slips in Coverage but this is fast becoming a circus with a few sideshows going on. If this really is the calibre of his so called Experts maybe a review of these experts is needed. (if that is even possible).
I just wonder if OP's team will be using this break going through the list and wondering who else is going to flounder like this Guy.
I wouldn't be surprised if the two-week break didn't see Roux trying to amend his plans for the defence on some level. He must know that Botha and Roger Rarebit's testimony has been neutralised by the prosecution.
I agree & think Roux is not remotely enamoured with OP on a personal level and as Conchie said has no problem with OP getting what's coming to him. I imagine he & Nel have in reality very similar opinions on the matter.
Neither are stupid and they are both doing a job, and I agree.
Does anyone know if it's really true that OP already had a new girlfriend before the trial? I remember reading in the papers and found it odd that he had moved on so quickly.
It's been suggested and a report appeared in The Sun. AFAIK, it's one of those things that people repeat without there being much in the way of evidence.
Does anyone know if it's really true that OP already had a new girlfriend before the trial? I remember reading in the papers and found it odd that he had moved on so quickly.
I think it's unconfirmed. It was a single newspaper who reported it.
I am not in the slightest s bit upset. I have said repeatedly that we will never know what caused the row. Repeating gossip as anything more than that, gossip, is just speculation.
Several times this thread has gone seriously of track as gossip is repeated as fact . It's worth saying what is pure speculation unless there is a source that is verifiable.
BIB *Off.. sorry I couldn't resist. Slap my hands.
I agree totally with your post. I have managed to run through lots of pages tonight with just scanning. Appears to be a lack of substance?
I wouldn't be surprised if the two-week break didn't see Roux trying to amend his plans for the defence on some level. He must know that Botha and Roger Rarebit's testimony has been neutralised by the prosecution.
Yes and given how OP earlier this week when he kept saying about all his amazing experts who would testify and basically backup what he says..The first person on the stand already broken by Nel and even casting doubt on some of OP own versions of events. Sky news went from taking a pretty Pro OP line to earlier on saying today couldn't have gone much worse even if they tried.
BIB *Off.. sorry I couldn't resist. Slap my hands.
I agree totally with your post. I have managed to run through lots of pages tonight with just scanning. Appears to be a lack of substance?
And it's very confusing why Dixon was there. Especially as they were supposed to have some 'dream team' and 'Evidence Room' animation and all sorts.
Strange. Except that there may be a lot of problems for these experts actually finding anything conclusive to support OPs version perhaps. Especially now it's changed again, although I would have thought they would just go with what they have.
After all, OP is known to be a liar, that ship has sailed, and they could just take no notice of what he said. They'll have to I think.
Yes, this might be an issue. A reputable expert witness is not going to perjure himself in court or give knowingly false evidence just because Pistorius waves a big cheque under his nose.
The animation is interesting. If it doesn't support Pistorius's testimony then I doubt it will even be used, which in itself would speak volumes. Still, they have two weeks to fiddle with it...
Oh my goodness I can finally post! I've been lurking for a while and completely addicted to this thread, let alone the trial!
So... now I can post, of course I'm a bit overwhelmed and anyway I've missed the boat (for two weeks anyway )
Random thoughts that I wanted to post along the way...
OP says he screams like a girl... if he does go to prison, there's every chance that will be tested to the full
If he ends up on house arrest I'll be incensed. He'll continue to live a pampered life surrounded and supported by equally deluded relatives but he won't be let out to play with guns any more. But no doubt he will get to play with virtual ones and shoot plenty of zombies. I wish I could be under house arrest, beats going out to work for a living!
I do think he's going to prison though. I really can't quite believe he isn't there now, bail always seemed to me to be an outrageous mistake. He's clearly irresponsible to the point of being a grave and continued danger to others, even if he didn't commit murder.
I'm still wavering between murder in a fit of rage and thinking he may have been so deluded as to think firing bullets through the door would scare Reeva witless but not actually kill her.
I don't know if this would fit everything but maybe they argued, Reeva goes to put her jeans on and get ready to walk out on him, he gets nasty and aggressive, rips the jeans off her, she storms off to the loo and actually does get to have a wee, he grabs his gun and fires through the door to scare her, realises she's been hit, is panicked out of rage and then everything from there is him realising the full horror of what he's done.
Can anyone clear up a question about the bin bags... I've been looking but can't find the facts. Someone in an earlier post mentioned that he might, for a fleeting moment, have thought about disposing of the body - chilling thought, but could he have got the bin bags in that moment, then when witnesses were there used them to stem the bleeding?
Ok sorry for the blithering! So glad I can post now, thanks to everyone for the links and the smiles and the updates.
Neither are stupid and they are both doing a job, and I agree.
I've always thought it must be very difficult to defend someone that your gut instinct tells you is guilty. Guess you just have to do your job and hope justice will prevail...so hoping it does this time.
Just watching Sky News round up of today - and they've made ol Dixon sound really intelligent, the way they've cut it all up following his testimony today - but they did leave in
memory is a fleeting thing ? (hope i've got that right) bit sloshed and sozzled !
I paused my 'watching of the sessions' to view sky news 9.30pm prog. In my eyes they spoke about him relatively 'objectively'. They certainly were aware that he was a bad witness.
Just watching Sky catch up. When OP isn't covering his ears he is watching Dixon with absolute fury. Anyone else notice his thundering facial expression?
I read his face as one of defeat, but trying to keep 'together'. Not of fury.
I'm just off to rip up my geology degree. Professor Waffle probably does know a fair bit about chemicals and materials, kinetics and so on but I'm as baffled as everyone else as to why he was actually entertained as any kind of expert in a murder case, especially the first one to be broadcast and analysed in such a way.
I'm another one completely enamoured with Mr Nel by the way. He's now an international celebrity and I for one am already fantasising about him on Celebrity BB
If he fired through the door in a rage, not aiming at her, but knowing she was in there, would that be culpable homicide or premeditated murder?
I think that's very problematic - a 'reasonable' person would not expect that the person inside that tiny room, with hard walls, using talon bullets and four shots, wouldn't likely be dead or seriously injured.
And the spread of the bullet looks very deliberate according to Hood today.
So it would be ABOVE Culpable Homicide.
He also tried to 'cover up' and this is seen as raising the level of the murder.
Have a look at this - Dolus - it shows the SA breakdown of murders.
Think it would still be pre-med murder bearing in mind the bullet type, proximity to the toilet cubicle, number of shots, size of cubicle etc.
Yes. It's a difficult one for me, but then I'm not a lawyer or a judge. If he was angry and fired at the door then Steenkamp wouldn't necessarily have been his 'target', and I wonder if that isn't needed before it could be premeditated murder.
Yes. It's a difficult one for me, but then I'm not a lawyer or a judge. If he was angry and fired at the door then Steenkamp wouldn't necessarily have been his 'target', and I wonder if that isn't needed before it could be premeditated murder.
See above Kap - it doesn't have to be Dolus directus, to be murder, and be above CH in seriousness.
Yes. It's a difficult one for me, but then I'm not a lawyer or a judge. If he was angry and fired at the door then Steenkamp wouldn't necessarily have been his 'target', and I wonder if that isn't needed before it could be premeditated murder.
But he didn't just fire at a door did he. He fired at a door knowing a person was behind it, hence it is murder.
Comments
Given not only the Gravity of this case but the worldwide interest makes you wonder
why he thought a "joke" like that would be acceptable. That's my main issue with M'lady okay she's been harsh on the slips in Coverage but this is fast becoming a circus with a few sideshows going on. If this really is the calibre of his so called Experts maybe a review of these experts is needed. (if that is even possible).
I just wonder if OP's team will be using this break going through the list and wondering who else is going to flounder like this Guy.
Welcome.:) we are all asking the same questions.
I can't see that it's money either.
And it's very confusing why Dixon was there. Especially as they were supposed to have some 'dream team' and 'Evidence Room' animation and all sorts.
Strange. Except that there may be a lot of problems for these experts actually finding anything conclusive to support OPs version perhaps. Especially now it's changed again, although I would have thought they would just go with what they have.
After all, OP is known to be a liar, that ship has sailed, and they could just take no notice of what he said. They'll have to I think.
Does anyone know if it's really true that OP already had a new girlfriend before the trial? I remember reading in the papers and found it odd that he had moved on so quickly.
I wouldn't be surprised if the two-week break didn't see Roux trying to amend his plans for the defence on some level. He must know that Botha and Roger Rarebit's testimony has been neutralised by the prosecution.
Neither are stupid and they are both doing a job, and I agree.
It's been suggested and a report appeared in The Sun. AFAIK, it's one of those things that people repeat without there being much in the way of evidence.
I think it's unconfirmed. It was a single newspaper who reported it.
BIB *Off.. sorry I couldn't resist. Slap my hands.
I agree totally with your post. I have managed to run through lots of pages tonight with just scanning. Appears to be a lack of substance?
Yes and given how OP earlier this week when he kept saying about all his amazing experts who would testify and basically backup what he says..The first person on the stand already broken by Nel and even casting doubt on some of OP own versions of events. Sky news went from taking a pretty Pro OP line to earlier on saying today couldn't have gone much worse even if they tried.
......off.:)
Yes, this might be an issue. A reputable expert witness is not going to perjure himself in court or give knowingly false evidence just because Pistorius waves a big cheque under his nose.
The animation is interesting. If it doesn't support Pistorius's testimony then I doubt it will even be used, which in itself would speak volumes. Still, they have two weeks to fiddle with it...
I think he should get Murder.
But a part of me still can't believe that they wouldn't try to make it easy on OP.
Welcome to DS
I've always thought it must be very difficult to defend someone that your gut instinct tells you is guilty. Guess you just have to do your job and hope justice will prevail...so hoping it does this time.
I paused my 'watching of the sessions' to view sky news 9.30pm prog. In my eyes they spoke about him relatively 'objectively'. They certainly were aware that he was a bad witness.
If he fired through the door in a rage, not aiming at her, but knowing she was in there, would that be culpable homicide or premeditated murder?
I read his face as one of defeat, but trying to keep 'together'. Not of fury.
Think it would still be pre-med murder bearing in mind the bullet type, proximity to the toilet cubicle, number of shots, size of cubicle etc.
Thanks
I'm just off to rip up my geology degree. Professor Waffle probably does know a fair bit about chemicals and materials, kinetics and so on but I'm as baffled as everyone else as to why he was actually entertained as any kind of expert in a murder case, especially the first one to be broadcast and analysed in such a way.
I'm another one completely enamoured with Mr Nel by the way. He's now an international celebrity and I for one am already fantasising about him on Celebrity BB
Murder, he shot in her direction (four times) knowing she was there.
I think that's very problematic - a 'reasonable' person would not expect that the person inside that tiny room, with hard walls, using talon bullets and four shots, wouldn't likely be dead or seriously injured.
And the spread of the bullet looks very deliberate according to Hood today.
So it would be ABOVE Culpable Homicide.
He also tried to 'cover up' and this is seen as raising the level of the murder.
Have a look at this - Dolus - it shows the SA breakdown of murders.
http://www.conferencespeakers.co.za/the-oscar-pistorius-trial-what-did-he-do-david-dadic/
I think it would fall either in Dolus indirectus - he saw the unlawful conduct of consequences as certain, or virtually certain.
Or Dolus Eventualis - SHOULD have foreseen the possible consequences.
Yes. It's a difficult one for me, but then I'm not a lawyer or a judge. If he was angry and fired at the door then Steenkamp wouldn't necessarily have been his 'target', and I wonder if that isn't needed before it could be premeditated murder.
See above Kap - it doesn't have to be Dolus directus, to be murder, and be above CH in seriousness.