Would hitting on Reeva look-alikes have been illegal?! I'm not sure what you are saying here. The reports of him flirting with a woman who resembled Reeva was not related to the nightclub incident which was referred to in court and involved Jared mortimer.

Sorry, I thought the two incidents occurred on the same night-- apparently Oscar was out on the town getting drunk and causing trouble on several occasions while out on bail.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Os...oting-20140720

I don't think Roux would have felt compelled to apologize for Oscar hitting on the Reeva look-alike, Kesiah Frank. Certainly not illegal. He did apologize to the court for his public drunkenness and brawling though since that could conceivably get his bail revoked.

I believe there were different incidents including the brawl while he was on bail , the incident where he hit on the blonde look-a-like Reeva, Lawyer was a few months after the shooting . But there were so many incidents it's difficult to separate them.

By so many, you mean the nightclub fight with Jared mortimer near the end of the trial in 2014, and the night where he went to to a private party followed by a bar in 2013?

Feel free to interpret what is reported as you like and in a more favourable light for the murderer. That is entirely your choice. I will interpret it as I choose.
Let's face it Curley you have not once, never nada, chosen to enter into any debate/discussion about any cases that involved Pistorius and the police. Not one other misdemeanour has been debated by you in any detail . And there have been several.

I don't think that's true. Which misdemeanours are you referring to?

And yes- by the same token - you are indeed equally free to interpret what is reported in as unfavourable light as you wish. Eg implying that the two known evenings where Pistorius went out are too numerous to count.

I see some posters are still confusing evidence with "news" which is irrelevant entertainment.

The last time I checked we were not sequestered in a jury room.

Oh dear, do I presume you think to be the foreman of the jury dispensing guidance?

We're not, but shouldn't we aim to base our opinions on the tried and tested evidence, rather than what in some cases has just been unsubstantiated gossip, all the same?

Aw give the poor guy his guns back, Curley has assured us all he has ticked all the boxes and is no longer a threat to society. How mean of them to remove his playthings !

You missed this bit in the very post you quoted :

Never being allowed to own a gun again minimises the risk of another overreaction to a perceived intruder somewhat.

How that equates to ' give his guns back ' only you can explain....!

Good try

Then I suppose you would like to file the numerous accounts of Pistorius’ violent temperament under ‘unsubstantiated gossip’ and not ‘tried and tested evidence.’

Well at least Pistorius being a persistent liar was evidential; the whole world witnessed that fact.

I think it was you who missed the point but no matter!

Except I didn't. I pointed out that your deliberate misinterpretation of my post was unfounded.

The post was sarcastic curley, did you not see that.

Pistorius is a paragon of goodness dontcha know? All those bad bad Pisto haters hating on him and posting lies about him endlessly to besmirch the poor angel . Bas***ds.

So was mine. Did you not see that?

A double whoosh,. Your not on your game this morning CW.

Double whoosh sounds refreshing.

I think you can (and should) approach it from both angles: 1) the purely courtroom-based evidence that led to a Murder DE conviction (but please don't stop at just Masipa's CH verdict); and 2) we should also feel free to discuss anything that has been reported in main stream media. (Isn't that the standard on most forums?)

Completely agree. But things reported still need to be held up to scrutiny and not just accepted because they fit the negative picture of Pistorius many people already hold. If the claims made by/in the media aren't supported, then that needs to be acknowledged, surely, and treated with some caution?

Maybe I am naive, but it's usually the other way around-- if a damaging claim made in the media is not met with legal action for libel, then it usually stands unchallenged. That's typically the way it is perceived here in the highly litigious U.S. Any media publishing false claims will usually issue a retraction pretty darn quick if challenged on the veracity of their claims.

Published exposure of Trump's peccadilloes being a case in point. He can sue, of course, but if the media does not retract, you can assume they are on firm ground.

I assume the same standard also applies to unsupported claims by the defense too-- such as Oscar screams like a woman??

You are Jenna Edkins and I claim my £5