IS HE GUILTY?

rob faux Wrote:

---

> mr hawaii Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > TNaicker Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > Barry "I ask you for the 8th time" Roux...
> >
> > I know that if I ever did something newsworthy
> > that got me a ticket to a potential lifetime in
> > jail Roux would be the person I'd call if I
> could
> > afford him -
>
> Absolutely ,but if Nel went private it would be a
> hard choice. I have no doubt they are both very
> good and both have got one hand behind their backs
> right now..........I love this kind of intrigue!
>
> I stayed awake and watched the OJ trial and also
> that US case where the Au Pair was accused of
> killing those Doctor's kid


me as well and in both cases I thought they would walk albeit the aupairs case was a bit of a surprise to a lot of people

the whole purpoese of this thread was to stimulate discussions and views and I am glad so far it is happening
thank you guys for your positive input, I really enjoy reading your views and input
If I was away for a while the first thing I do is to check on this thread to see what new views are there
thanx again

RG you may call me crazy so long as it is in the rite context

makes me wonder what FH would have said about this

Everyone hears gunshots but Barry hears Cricket bats

rob faux Wrote:

---

> mr hawaii Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > TNaicker Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > Barry "I ask you for the 8th time" Roux...
> >
> > I know that if I ever did something newsworthy
> > that got me a ticket to a potential lifetime in
> > jail Roux would be the person I'd call if I
> could
> > afford him -
>
> Absolutely ,but if Nel went private it would be a
> hard choice. I have no doubt they are both very
> good and both have got one hand behind their backs
> right now..........I love this kind of intrigue!
>
> I stayed awake and watched the OJ trial and also
> that US case where the Au Pair was accused of
> killing those Doctor's kid


I could name you 5 better defence lawyers if you asked me. If I was in trouble with the law, I would not go to Barry

Guys, I will say it over and over again during the State's case. Barry is making too many concessions for OP. Yes, he must believe he has a strong case, but why help the prosecution by admitting so many things? Who said anything about a cricket bat? Not a state witness!! Only Barry mentioned it.

Remember again, only OP was at the scene. No one else. Everything we are hearing is hearsy and circumstacial. This means nothing in our law.

A clever and experienced judge woudl have told Barry to shut up long ago. Talk about flogging a dead horse...

On the opening day of the trial the prosecution said that the State's case would be based on circumstantial evidence - if this is so meaningless and there is no prospect of a conviction on such evidence, and the prosecution is aware this is all their case is built on, why would they still have charged Pistorius with murder then?

I think the statement by the Dr Stipp that he heard 3" shots" then screaming by a woman then a man shouting for help and then a woman again and then another 4 "shots" shows that he woke up after the 1st shot and the first couple woke up after the last shot. The evidence of the screaming then fit together and the last 4 "shots" were actually the cricket bat breaking the door. Dr Stipp told his wife to go back inside when the 2nd lot of "shots' started but that was the bat.

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> I think the statement by the Dr Stipp that he
> heard 3" shots" then screaming by a woman then a
> man shouting for help and then a woman again and
> then another 4 "shots" shows that he woke up after
> the 1st shot and the first couple woke up after
> the last shot. The evidence of the screaming then
> fit together and the last 4 "shots" were actually
> the cricket bat breaking the door. Dr Stipp told
> his wife to go back inside when the 2nd lot of
> "shots' started but that was the bat.

interestingly that version the state disputes
if the court accepts doctor Stipps version then the state has a problem
that is why Roux is not griling l the Dr because that version fits into the defense version he would like the court to accept that version

FazzX Wrote:

---

> On the opening day of the trial the prosecution
> said that the State's case would be based on
> circumstantial evidence - if this is so
> meaningless and there is no prospect of a
> conviction on such evidence, and the prosecution
> is aware this is all their case is built on, why
> would they still have charged Pistorius with
> murder then?

if the state cannot prove murder he can still be found guilty of lesser charge they have nothing to lose
the fact is he did shot her that is not in dispute only what he is guilty off.

my learned friends on this site can correct me if I am wrong on the following statement, maybe to much court series etc, but in USA if they charge you with murder they must prove murder, if they do not get guilty version on murder they cannot convict you on lesser charge, I might be wrong

Haupie Wrote:

---

> Guys, I will say it over and over again during the
> State's case. Barry is making too many concessions
> for OP. Yes, he must believe he has a strong case,
> but why help the prosecution by admitting so many
> things? Who said anything about a cricket bat? Not
> a state witness!! Only Barry mentioned it.
>
> Remember again, only OP was at the scene. No one
> else. Everything we are hearing is hearsy and
> circumstacial. This means nothing in our law.
>
> A clever and experienced judge woudl have told
> Barry to shut up long ago. Talk about flogging a
> dead horse...

to me this judge is very placid
there was times that I also thought she should stop Roux and she has overruled most of Gerrie "jump up" Nel's objections and are allowing the defense to much leeway to badger witnesses

What is your view on the first and 3rd wittinesses the couple, do you think they were creditable?

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> I think the statement by the Dr Stipp that he
> heard 3" shots" then screaming by a woman then a
> man shouting for help and then a woman again and
> then another 4 "shots" shows that he woke up after
> the 1st shot and the first couple woke up after
> the last shot. The evidence of the screaming then
> fit together and the last 4 "shots" were actually
> the cricket bat breaking the door. Dr Stipp told
> his wife to go back inside when the 2nd lot of
> "shots' started but that was the bat.

Craig, if it was Oscar that was screaming, and not Reeva, why would he be screaming in the first place? According to Oscars version the only time he could have been sure that Reeva was in the toilet was once he had broken the door down. In his mind it could still have been a burglar (dead or otherwise) behind the door.

I think his story falls short because his reaction fit a man who knew who was behind the door, before he had sight of the victim.

Saksy, the Dr woke up and heard 3 shots(probably the 1st woke him). 3 independent specialists have stated that with her wounds Reeva would not have been able to utter a sound after the shot to the head. Therefore the only person who could have screamed after the shots was Oscar or as Barry Roux said" was there another woman there?"