The Blade Runner Trial

[Fox]

This whole debate in the court of whether they neighbours are lying about hearing screaming can surely simply be proved by recreating it. Get a person to scream in oscars bathroom and get the judge to stand in neighbours bedroom.

Like ace Ventura did with the patio doors

Easy.

 

[Spionkop69]

You should be a lawyer.

 

[SummerOnions]

The only question I have is this; why the fuck is the trial of some South African, constantly being televised on a British tv station?

Until they find a motive for him to deliberately shoot her, they will struggle to convict on murder. Unless I've missed something in the blanket coverage, there has been no actual motive presented apart from what may or may not be on her iphone?

cos he's a half famous guy who serves as a welcome distraction from the real problems going on in the country

 

[Fox]

You should be a lawyer.

I don't understand why they are still arguing about it. Just try it.

 

[Spionkop69]

cos he's a half famous guy who serves as a welcome distraction from the real problems going on in the country

The real problems going on in South Africa?

 

[Rosco]

They don't need motive to convict for murder - murder = unlawful killing + intent to kill.

And if you shoot four times at someone it's hard to argue your intent was anything else.

 

[dantes]

It's not the movies you don't need to prove motive and means or opportunity. You just need to convince the judge that he did it.

 

[Spionkop69]

They don't need motive to convict for murder - murder = unlawful killing + intent to kill.

And if you shoot four times at someone it's hard to argue your intent was anything else.

But he's admitted killing her on the basis he thought she was an intruder. So if they're saying that's different then surely having a reason for it being different helps them?

 

[Rosco]

It helps but it's easier just to show he's lying about his belief / his belief is ridiculous etc

 

[SummerOnions]

The real problems going on in South Africa?

nah, here

I've no idea what the reception is over there

 

[dantes]

The most likely scenario is they argued. He threatened her like a big man. She ran and locked herself in the bathroom. He got pissed off and fired a shot in order to scare her into opening the door. She screamed. He fired some more shots. He could have argued over the intention in those circumstances I guess. But he wasn't to know that, so immediately concocted a bullshit story for the police, which is soon going to be taken apart as lies, then he will face the maximum punishment. The lies always cost you more than the actual crime you committed, especially when you're thick.

 

[Rosco]

What burglar would lock themselves in a bathroom anyway ?

Isn't escaping usually the priority ?

 

[Athens]

What burglar would lock themselves in a bathroom anyway ?

A turd burglar?

 

[Red Astaire]

The most likely scenario is they argued. He threatened her like a big man. She ran and locked herself in the bathroom. He got pissed off and fired a shot in order to scare her into opening the door. She screamed. He fired some more shots. He could have argued over the intention in those circumstances I guess. But he wasn't to know that, so immediately concocted a bullshit story for the police, which is soon going to be taken apart as lies, then he will face the maximum punishment. The lies always cost you more than the actual crime you committed, especially when you're thick.

I bet that is exactly what happened. It's pretty obvious to me anyway. Case closed.

 

[dantes]

The barrister really is thick. He is bringing up ridiculous suppositions to try to cast doubt on the witness statements. If it were a jury trial, it might work to put doubt in their minds and confuse them about their role. But this is a judge. As it stands he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The barrister is coming up with unreasonable and laughably irrational doubts. And he is also trying to highlight doubts about stupid insignificant points in the witness statements. I don't think he really understands how guilt is established in a court.

 

[Judge Jules]

Your suggestion above wouldn't actually be my guess regarding how it happened. I reckon it was probably down to steroid rage. She ran and locked herself in the bathroom because even before he started shooting he was clearly off his trolley and she already feared for her safety at that point.

If I'm right about that though, you're definitely right about the lawyer because you'd think there might then be an argument that the balance of his mind was disturbed at the time.

 

[dantes]

I'm pretty sure 'roid rage' was just the media trying to sensationalise a couple of speculative studies in order to shit on Vince McMahon.

 

[Judge Jules]

Well, maybe, but something convinced the poor girl that this wasn't just another temper outburst on his part.

 

[Pesam]

I'm all for giving a man a fair hearing but could we not throw Shrien Dewani in the dock with Pistorious in a double jeopardy SUPER trial, cause otherwise we're gonna have to go through this show trial media shite all over again later this year.

 

[dantes]

I'm all for giving a man a fair hearing but could we not throw Shrien Dewani in the dock with Pistorious in a double jeopardy SUPER trial, cause otherwise we're gonna have to go through this show trial media shite all over again later this year.

His lawyers were in the high court a few weeks ago trying to get the decision to extradite him judicially reviewed. The Lord Justices decided he could fuck off, so he is on his way. I think they are just waiting for an assurance from the South African goverment that if Dewani is unfit to stand trial then they will send him back to us. That decision is rightly up to them and not the UK Hugh Court. Loooool I am falling in love with law. The only way he won't stand trial there is if he dies first.

 

[dantes]

Well, maybe, but something convinced the poor girl that this wasn't just another temper outburst on his part.

You mean something other than the gun he was probably pointing at her? The only thing that confuses me is his statement that he went to the balcony to move a fan or something, before coming back to check for a turd burglar in his toilet. Very random, the kind of thing that would catch Poirot's attention.

Maybe the fan was the thing he picked up to bash her with first, and after she died he made up that crap to explain why his palm prints were on the pole of the fan.

 

[Judge Jules]

Under normal circs.the gun might well not have made her run. I'd have thought a person wouldn't normally turn their back and run in a situation where they couldn't easily get away, but would want to keep the gun in sight and try to talk the other person down. This time, though, something made her think he was beyond reason. Fleeing looks to me like it was her last desperate resort.

 

[jon545660]

He was drug tested straight after the shooting and was negative for steroids. Unless the prosecution has a theory or any proof of his ability to cover up the roid use then don't think that can be used.

 

[Rosco]

Lance Armstrong never tested positive either

 

[Hyena]

They don't need motive to convict for murder - murder = unlawful killing + intent to kill.

And if you shoot four times at someone it's hard to argue your intent was anything else.

The most likely scenario is they argued. He threatened her like a big man. She ran and locked herself in the bathroom. He got pissed off and fired a shot in order to scare her into opening the door. She screamed. He fired some more shots. He could have argued over the intention in those circumstances I guess. But he wasn't to know that, so immediately concocted a bullshit story for the police, which is soon going to be taken apart as lies, then he will face the maximum punishment. The lies always cost you more than the actual crime you committed, especially when you're thick.

Agree. He hasn't a leg to stand on.

 

[Judge Jules]

Jon: didn't know that. It'll be interesting to see whether the prosecution try to make something of it during the trial. However that might explain why the defence don't seem to have raised the "balance of his mind was disturbed" type of argument, at least not yet. If they can't blame steroid use, you'd think it would be a much harder case to make.

Pistorius and his GF must have argued before though - he's known to have a hot temper. *Something* was different this time.

 

[dantes]

Maybe they were arguing about his drug use, and she went to the toilet to flush it down the bog. Much like that scene in Goodfellas

 

[Rosco]

Is he going to give evidence ?

 

[jon545660]

Lance Armstrong never tested positive either

Armstrong wasn't tested by the police though, who I'd imagine are harder to bribe. Still possible though, obv.

 

[dantes]

Is he going to give evidence ?

You'd think he would have done so on day one. Instead his barrister read out a short vaguely worded statement from him saying that he "believed the prosecution had no basis for their allegation that he wanted to kill her". I think he wants to wait to see how things unfold, and then once it becomes obvious there is in fact a very strong basis, he can still try to worm his way out of that with various fall-back arguments. If he said the prosecution were quite simply factually wrong, as you would ordinarily expect, it would leave him less options further down the line.