The Blade Runner Trial
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
The state barrister is relentlessly aggressive, it's going to be great viewing when he gets his hands on the poor cunt and tears him to absolute pieces.
These expert witnesses are so stupid though, its embarrassing. They are not experts, they know less than I do about their own field, and when they get questioned they resort to nonsense that gets ripped apart by a fucking barrister. What kind of scientists are these? I'm listening to them pulling my hair out, the correct answers to their questions are soooo obvious and the fucking retards stand there getting chunks torn off them by a law graduate. It makes me sick.
They should fuck off all expert wintesses, ballistics experts, pathologists, medics, acoustics experts. Fuck them all off. The only scientists capable of giving evidence in court ought to be physicists, engineers and mathematicians.
These expert witnesses are so stupid though, its embarrassing. They are not experts, they know less than I do about their own field, and when they get questioned they resort to nonsense that gets ripped apart by a fucking barrister. What kind of scientists are these? I'm listening to them pulling my hair out, the correct answers to their questions are soooo obvious and the fucking retards stand there getting chunks torn off them by a law graduate. It makes me sick.
They should fuck off all expert wintesses, ballistics experts, pathologists, medics, acoustics experts. Fuck them all off. The only scientists capable of giving evidence in court ought to be physicists, engineers and mathematicians.
Hahahha it is one brutal cross-examination. The state barrister is a bigger cunt than I thought. He put a picture of her blown apart head on the screen and demanded that he look at it, and take responsibility for it. The poor bitch refused to look and broke down on the stand in tears. They had to adjourn. I shouldn't laugh in reality but that was truly awesome stuff
It got worse for him after the adjournment. He didn't give a straight answer to anything. When the barrister got pissed and asked him to get a grip, Oscar snapped and said he had to think carefully about the implications of what he would say as his life was on the line.... Dear god so basically he admitted he is an unreliable witness.
The barrister then said Reeva doesn't have her life any more since he shot and killed her, so he should shut the fuck up and just answer the questions truthfully without thinking of the implications for him.
At the rate he is getting ruined the death penalty could come into play.
The barrister then said Reeva doesn't have her life any more since he shot and killed her, so he should shut the fuck up and just answer the questions truthfully without thinking of the implications for him.
At the rate he is getting ruined the death penalty could come into play.
Like Pete, I couldn't get that either.
He's answering the lawyers questions, so why reply to the judge?
Makes no sense & sounds fucking weird.
I actually wondered if the lawyer was a female (I only heard his replies to begin with).
He's answering the lawyers questions, so why reply to the judge?
Makes no sense & sounds fucking weird.
I actually wondered if the lawyer was a female (I only heard his replies to begin with).
Strictly speaking his answers are to the court, not to one single individual, and it's the judge who's the court's main representative. He may have been coached to do that by his own brief.
And of course he's guilty. I'm waiting for the prosecution to ask him where he thought Reeva was all the time that the incident was going on. How the feck is he going to finesse *that*?
And of course he's guilty. I'm waiting for the prosecution to ask him where he thought Reeva was all the time that the incident was going on. How the feck is he going to finesse *that*?
They said on the radio after firing the gun he looked under the bed, expecting her to be hiding there.
I suppose it's the only excuse he could use.
The only lie he could try and tell, more like.
The judge is a former crime reporter. She's not going to fall for that garbage in a million years. The only real question is whether the prosecution has enough positive evidence to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which they still have to do even though Pistorius is guilty as feck and everybody knows it.
The judge is a former crime reporter. She's not going to fall for that garbage in a million years. The only real question is whether the prosecution has enough positive evidence to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which they still have to do even though Pistorius is guilty as feck and everybody knows it.
At the beginning I actually wondered if they'd try and say that's what happened, because - if it were true, which I don't believe for a moment - that would make him innocent of murder though possibly guilty of a lesser offence. As far as I can tell, though, they're going for broke instead, a flat-out "not guilty" verdict. Given that Pistorius is painfully obviously lying through his teeth, that's a very high-risk strategy.
R
RedZeppelin III
Guest
i read this on the BBC
"If acquitted, South African law stipulates that the court must consider the separate, lesser charge of culpable homicide, or manslaughter, for which he could receive between six and 15 years in prison. Mr Pistorius also faces charges of illegally firing a gun in public and of illegally possessing ammunition, both of which he denies."
is that similar to other countries ? The UK , ireland, U.S etc .... i thought if you get tried for murder and are acquitted then that is it , they can't switch it up and decide it's not murder but man-slaughter .
Anyway surely with the above in South Africa he has to be getting some jail time .
And one thing i really don't get ...if you wake up in the middle of the night to go to the toilet you always just go semi dazed and quickly , would anybody ever lock the bathroom door behind them ?
"If acquitted, South African law stipulates that the court must consider the separate, lesser charge of culpable homicide, or manslaughter, for which he could receive between six and 15 years in prison. Mr Pistorius also faces charges of illegally firing a gun in public and of illegally possessing ammunition, both of which he denies."
is that similar to other countries ? The UK , ireland, U.S etc .... i thought if you get tried for murder and are acquitted then that is it , they can't switch it up and decide it's not murder but man-slaughter .
Anyway surely with the above in South Africa he has to be getting some jail time .
And one thing i really don't get ...if you wake up in the middle of the night to go to the toilet you always just go semi dazed and quickly , would anybody ever lock the bathroom door behind them ?
Don't know about other countries but I think you're right about the UK, though the accused can plea-bargain his/her way down to a lesser charge.
As far as your final para.goes: of course not. She was in there because they had a big row - the latest of many apparently - and she was terrified he was going to do something drastic. Which he did.
As far as your final para.goes: of course not. She was in there because they had a big row - the latest of many apparently - and she was terrified he was going to do something drastic. Which he did.
I don't think you appreciate quite how brutal his evidence has been. He is well and truly fucked, his counsel were sitting there in shock with their head in their hands. He's charged with murder, but also a couple of separate charges of incidents where he recklessly fired a gun out of a car sun roof, and another time in a restaurant with kids and stuff close by. He foolishly pleaded not guilty to those as well. Utterly stupid...
Barrister: Was the gun in your possession
Oscar: Yes
Barrister: Did it not discharge?
Oscar: Yes
Barrister: Did you discharge it?
Oscar: No
Barrister: What?
Oscar: M'lady. My finger was not on the trigger. It discharged by itself.
Barrister: The police expert testified that it is physically impossible for that gun to fire without the trigger being pulled. Impossible. That gun discharged. I ask you again, was your finger on the trigger?
Oscar: No, my finger was not on the trigger.
Barrister: Amazing. You are not prepared to concede or take responsibility for anything.
Barrister: Was the gun in your possession
Oscar: Yes
Barrister: Did it not discharge?
Oscar: Yes
Barrister: Did you discharge it?
Oscar: No
Barrister: What?
Oscar: M'lady. My finger was not on the trigger. It discharged by itself.
Barrister: The police expert testified that it is physically impossible for that gun to fire without the trigger being pulled. Impossible. That gun discharged. I ask you again, was your finger on the trigger?
Oscar: No, my finger was not on the trigger.
Barrister: Amazing. You are not prepared to concede or take responsibility for anything.
It got worse. The barrister then asked him why his own barrister didn't cross-examine the police expert if his version was that the gun can discharge by itself. Oscar say "I don't know, Mr Roux made a mistake".... he blamed his own fucking lawyer. Then the defence lawyer had to stick up for Mr Roux who was just sitting there taking one on the chin from his client. It was comical.
Yep. It's like seeing some scally throw a brick through a window, then when you challenge the little sh!te he says "Wasn't me".
R
RedZeppelin III
Guest
have many people come out and defended him as a person ? from what i've read his ex's hate him and portray him as very aggressive . OK you could argue that an ex isn't the most balanced character witness but in such a serious situation usually one would say something like " we had a bad break up and oscar hurt me but he isn't aggressive and i don't believe he has murder in him " . Well if it was true .
His ex said he screamed and shouted at her on several occasions, they broke up because he cheated on her with the deceased. Then she started crying uncontrollably. Could have been worse. The deceased also sent him whatsapp messages saying she was scared of him when he snapped and shouted at her.
I think he explained it by saying his ex was a liar and made it up, and the deceased was at fault for doing something wrong, either her accent, or chewing gum or something which she should not have done.
Yeh that's what stuck in my head yesterday.
He claimed he got up quickly so didn't stop to think whether she was lying next to him or not.
Whatever.
Am I right in the assumption that the fans/windows are about 2 feet (meant it) from the bed. So he'd have noticed the empty bed on the way past to the toilet, if that's what actually happened.
He's going break at some point isn't he, if Lionel Hutz doesn't throw the towel in for him
He's going break at some point isn't he, if Lionel Hutz doesn't throw the towel in for him
R
RedZeppelin III
Guest
he sounds angry and upset like lieutenant dan . He needs to get out in a storm on a shrimp boat .
I have a legal question. For example, as seems the case in this... case, what if the person was so obviously guilty and even admitted they were guilty to their lawyer, but still pleaded not guilty? What does the lawyer do then? (Assuming they can't then tell the authorities? As you can see, all my legal knowledge comes from movies). I assume that this has happened in the past and we haven't heard about it, but surely the lawyer's job is to provide a fair carriage of justice? So if he knows his client is guilty, shouldn't he be compelled to turn him in?
The lawyer has to withdraw from the case, and then if he had any morality he could turn the prick in. But that would be career suicide. In reality everything between a client and his lawyer is confidential and protected by legal privilidge.... which means nobody can force you to disclose it or use it as evidence. So its best to shut up and think of the paycheck.
There was a supreme court case in the UK recently. The prick was up for a murder charge I think, and had a state funded lawyer. Part way through the lawyer said fuck this shit and refused to represent him anymore. So he asked for a new state funded lawyer. The problem was the new lawyer was much more expensive... he had to charge not only for the current and future work, but he had to charge for reading all the background from day one. The state refused to pay again for work the first lawyer did. The prick therefore had his right to legal representation breached. After losing his case he appealed on that ground and won. His murder conviction was quashed.
If you are a lawyer and you hate the prick and know he is guilty, you should carry on collecting the money, but use your position to cleverly ensure he goes down. I think Mr Roux is doing this so respect to him.
There was a supreme court case in the UK recently. The prick was up for a murder charge I think, and had a state funded lawyer. Part way through the lawyer said fuck this shit and refused to represent him anymore. So he asked for a new state funded lawyer. The problem was the new lawyer was much more expensive... he had to charge not only for the current and future work, but he had to charge for reading all the background from day one. The state refused to pay again for work the first lawyer did. The prick therefore had his right to legal representation breached. After losing his case he appealed on that ground and won. His murder conviction was quashed.
If you are a lawyer and you hate the prick and know he is guilty, you should carry on collecting the money, but use your position to cleverly ensure he goes down. I think Mr Roux is doing this so respect to him.
No, a lawyer in a common law jurisdiction is an officer of the Court, so he or she cannot mislead the Court, i.e. if a client has made an admission of guilt, the lawyer cannot run a case theory attempting to demonstrate the innocence of the accused. This is all qualified by the fact that interactions between client and lawyer are privileged and cannot be disclosed unless the client waives that privilege anyway. Any lawyer who dobs a guilty client in is likely to face disciplinary proceedings, possibly be struck off the roll.
He or she may however, try the case on the basis that the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof, i.e. the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
He or she may however, try the case on the basis that the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof, i.e. the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
