Oscar Pistorius Trial (Merged)
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/12aca02a4f13ad1e10d6b7ce6fcf8d05.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 32,379 Forum Member
✭✭✭
shortyknickers wrote: »Thanks for posting that, interesting info.
I have watched today's sessions now though I confess to skimming through some of it. This is a list of the main points that sprung to mind (apologies chachachavvy for copying your style)
1. Initial impressions are that the defence is as shambolic as I accused the prosecution of being....why have witnesses that appear to contradict each other?
2. There was a hell of a lot of posturing and showmanship by Nel but the judge actually did him a favour when she told him off. He is far more effective when he reigns in the sarcasm, and he did that after she told him off. When he is just sarcastic and nasty he puts the witness on the defensive and they close up. When he is "kinder" he actually gets far more out of them
3. Dixon appear to have no real idea of how the evidence fits together. He was confident in what he said in his evidence in chief but less so when cross examined. I think he was so determined to be honest, possibly because of his police background, that he ended up looking a bit silly. I don't understand why the defence, with all their supposed money, used him the way they did.
4. When he was given the post mortem report to look through and exclaimed "what?" It was a major blow for the defence and a good point scored by the prosecution. While the point may not have been particularly relevant or crucial it did make him look like a real plonker and potentially threw doubt on the rest of his testimony.
5. Loved Roux admitting he was "ducking and diving" when the judge asked his opinion after Nel had asked for an early finish. Classic moment.
6. Is it just my tv or does Nel look a bit yellow ?
He asked Dixon to provide the evidence he had tomorrow. He also asked about the cricket bat he had used, don't know if he has to produce that.
Continuation of: Oscar Pistorius Trial (Merged)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Don't feel sorry for Dixon. He took the money and his "evidence" is flakey at best.
As I'd just written and amended a post.
But there ye go. We BOW to the powers and the mods, and my irritation is nothing in the grand scheme of things.:cool:
Cheers for that.
just prepared a post, it was really amazing of course, lost it now
pants !
The next 2 weeks will be a bit dull.
Don't feel so sorry for him now
Post it again here!
Didn't seem to take long did it ...
I think OP and Andy Coulson look alike
The defence tried to get Henry Lee a forensic scientist but he declined. He was the mutts nuts:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_%28forensic_scientist%29
As I KEEP saying - the prosecution DON'T know the details, they have evidence and they have circumstantial evidence.
IF they dont' know, quite, what happened, if their witnesses are able to say it may be this or that then that is FINE, that shows it's real.
They don't KNOW, they weren't there.
But IF the DEFENSE don't know, there is NO excuse because OP KNOWS, he was there, and, if he's telling the TRUTH, then there shouldn't be any damned PROBLEM.
But there seriously is, because OP IS lying, that is CLEAR, already, and the defense are now scrambling to try and get some OPINION that just MIGHT introduce a bit of doubt.
It's all they can hope for.
Someone suggested this afternoon that we could allocate roles and continue an imaginary trial
Not really fair..
Nope, definitely Shipman, he has the beard and everyfin'
Role model/father figure - perfectly normal:cool::D
Role play?
Yeah, I can kinda see that now you mention it.
He has a look of Bart Simpson too from certain angles.