IS HE GUILTY?

Observer, you have a great theory. Remember only one person knows the truth. OP has to tell the world. Nobody else knows for certain. Is OP going to tell the truth, or will he lie and go free? The cat is amongst the pigeons now

I really do believe there was an arguement, he chased her......she went to the bathroom where she went to get away from OP. She opened the window to shout or try and escape....... and then when she heard the beating down of the door, locked herself in the toilet where she had no escape........

Why is Roux spending so much time on "primary residue" testing of Pistorius's hands...................seems pointless unless they suddenly intend to deny firing the shots????

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Why is Roux spending so much time on "primary
> residue" testing of Pistorius's
> hands...................seems pointless unless
> they suddenly intend to deny firing the shots????


it wasn't done so much as to actually see if there was primary residue or not...but he is trying to see if the eveidence gathered was done in the correct procedure...remember...and try see everything BR says or does,is done to discredit the witness...NOTHING ELSE..even to the point he asks ,how many photos did the IO take of oscar..how many means nothing in the greater scheme of things...but since the IO says it was 9...and now if he prove there was more...then the follow upp question would be to the judge...HOW CAN WE TRUST THE IO IN ANYTHING HE SAYS....thats all he is doing

RACING GURU Wrote:

---

> rob faux Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Why is Roux spending so much time on "primary
> > residue" testing of Pistorius's
> > hands...................seems pointless unless
> > they suddenly intend to deny firing the
> shots????
>
>
> it wasn't done so much as to actually see if there
> was primary residue or not...but he is trying to
> see if the eveidence gathered was done in the
> correct procedure...remember...and try see
> everything BR says or does,is done to discredit
> the witness...NOTHING ELSE..even to the point he
> asks ,how many photos did the IO take of
> oscar..how many means nothing in the greater
> scheme of things...but since the IO says it was
> 9...and now if he prove there was more...then the
> follow upp question would be to the judge...HOW
> CAN WE TRUST THE IO IN ANYTHING HE SAYS....thats
> all he is doing

I agree with you explanation.............but wasting court time going on about something irrelevant could just as well p!ss off the judge and have the exact opposite effect ???

apparantely...this is a typical day in court...its called a tedious day...asking insignificant questions...its called probing

Witness Rens and his proficiency test is the most important bit of testimony I have heard in this trial as unlike the scream testimony it will be difficult for Oscar to explain how this imagined threat resulted in him forgetting the test and it's lessons. Difficult to say you did not remember it when on previous occasions (Taylor and washing machine) you did not go Rambo on your home - I wait with anticipation to see how Roux get's him out of this one!!

I realized this morning that GN still have to call the witness that are to tell if RS cell phone was used and who did she call in that last seconds, I remember that their was talk of her speaking frantically if I remember correctly


the other Steenkamp trail in Griekwastad also carries on today, that 17 year old is definitely guilty.

JAMES BLOND Wrote:

---

> Haupie Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > mr hawaii Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > JAMES BLOND Wrote:
> > >
> >
>

---

>
> >
> > >

---

> > > > mr hawaii Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

---

>
> >
> > >
> > > >

---

> > > > > JAMES BLOND Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

---

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >

---

> > > > > > If i was OP I would not take the stand
> > > > > > because the state must prove beyond
> > > > reasonable
> > > > > > doubt that his version van not be true
> > and
> > > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > they can not do that, manslaughter at
> > best
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure if he can now as the state
> has
> > a
> > > > > right to question him on his statement
> for
> > > his
> > > > > bail application and I'm sure I heard
> > > something
> > > > > about him giving his version when his
> > > advocate
> > > > > read his responses to the charge sheeet
> and
> > > Mr
> > > > > Roux has mentioned Mr Pretorius will say
> ..
> > -
> > > > > Without him giving evidence to the
> contrary
> > > how
> > > > > can he possibly believe the court will
> not
> > > > favor
> > > > > the versions presented by Fresco, Sam
> > Taylor
> > > > and
> > > > > Lerena (who has as far as I know no
> reason
> > to
> > > > lie
> > > > > about what happened) if he does not state
> > > > > otherwise?
> > > >
> > > > MR H with my layman knowledge you can not
> be
> > > > forced to testify or br questioned if you
> do
> > > not
> > > > want to but maybe our learned friend Haupir
> > can
> > > > shed light on hat
> > > > my take is we know he shot R the state must
> > > prove
> > > > beyond reasonable doubt that his intention
> > was
> > > to
> > > > murder her and with what I have heard so
> far
> > I
> > > do
> > > > not think that the state will be able to
> > prove
> > > > that , ro much conflicting evidence imo so
> > for
> > > him
> > > > to testify can hurt him
> > > > the gun charges is not so serious it was
> > > brought
> > > > in to discredit his character because in
> > > MURDER
> > > > TRAIL you are not allowed character
> witnesses
> > > > smart move from the sttae to prove he liked
> > > guns
> > > > but it does not disprove his version
> > > >
> > > > do not be surprised when BR brings
> > application
> > > to
> > > > have murder charges to be dropped once
> state
> > > > closes it case, that will be a shrewd move,
> > > > because if the states case is not strong I
> am
> > > sure
> > > > the judge will consider that
> > >
> > > If that happens then I think there will be
> more
> > > than one murder that the courts will have to
> > deal
> > > with as the South African public want justice
> > > either for Oscar or against him
> >
> >
> > Gents, on a point of law, or rather a few
> points
> > of law, this case wil still have many surprises
> > for the man in the street.
> >
> > I have been away from internet access for a few
> > days, as my daughters have been involved in
> some
> > serious athletics up country and I stayed on a
> > farm where I had no tv or internet access. I
> will
> > be catching up on 199 tonight.
> >
> > However, OP will have to testify. he has made a
> > statement saying he pulled the trigger. He
> > admitted he killed Reeva. There is, IMO, no way
> he
> > can avoid taking the stand. Yes, BR can argue
> at
> > the end of the state cas that s174 of the
> criminal
> > procedure act should apply and his client
> should
> > be discharged on all counts. But for this to
> > happen he will have to state that there is NO
> > evidence his client has to answer to.
> >
> > Evidence that is bad, is still evidence. So he
> > will have to convince the court that Gerrie Nel
> > has not made out any kind of case for OP to
> answer
> > to. I doubt this will ever be in the judge's
> mind.
> > She will have to hear OP's evidence. He pulled
> the
> > trigger.
> >
> > Also, we have to keep in mind that the charge
> is
> > murder. In our law, and we are one of the few
> > countries applying this, Culpable homocide is a
> > competent verdict on a murder charge. So it
> will
> > serve no purpose for OP and BR to argue there
> is
> > no case to answer ot.
> >
> > There is a tried and tested maxim in our law
> > called Dolus eventualis. Google it if you want.
> It
> > means that a person may nit have had the
> intent
> > to kill, but still fired the shots realising
> the
> > shots could kill someone. It doesn't matter if
> he
> > knew the ID of that person, as long as he knew
> it
> > was a human being. The moment he accepted that
> his
> > shots could kill a human being, and he still
> fired
> > those shots, he is guilty of murder.
> >
> > This is, IMO, OP's boggest problem. Intruder or
> > Reeva, He shot to kill. I just hope the judge
> > knows this.
> >
> > We all have our opinions. The judge will have
> her
> > own. She will also haev her own agendas. We
> will
> > never know what they are. However, I believe
> the
> > realises that the world wants to hear OP's
> > version.
> >
> > I would love to be GN, cross examining OP. He
> has
> > so much to answer to. But, once again, if he
> > successfully sticks to his story, he should
> walk.
> >
> > Lets see what the new week brings. I am sure
> > Gerrie Nell has a surprise or 2 up his sleeve
> for
> > the defence
>
>
> thanks Haupie for your very informative insight
> into the law I found it interesting and the whole
> trail fascinating as things sways back in forth in
> favor of the state and the defense
> one moment you think OP is as guilty as heel and
> then you hear how the state has messed up some of
> the evidence and you start thinking the defense is
> no on top and so it goes on, can not wait for this
> weeks happenings
> I believe the trail can be extended for twee
> weeks.
> wonder what the blond will wear tommorrow I
> predict black and white

black and white was the color yesterday:)
today something non white maybe pink?

Haupie,please can you clarify something about court procedure in SA.
I read a lot of documentaries on court cases in the UK and USA as they have always interested me.One thing that often comes to light is that cross examination is always limited to matters raised on direct testimony(to the point where questions are often avoided to exclude cross examination)

In this case Roux often asks witnesses about other statements(sometimes not even entered into evidence yet) and issues that were not raised by the state..................do we have different rules or is the court just being extremely lenient?

Thanks !

Now I see where Roux is going with the forensics, pictures and police blundering etc.....he will try convince all that the blood splatter in other areas of the house ie bedroom , bathroom even on cricket bat, duvet, towels and not locked toilet.....were a result of crime scene contamination and happened after shooting....must have been a very physical encounter before things really got messy in the toilet.....:

Muhtiman Wrote:

---

> Now I see where Roux is going with the forensics,
> pictures and police blundering etc.....he will try
> convince all that the blood splatter in other
> areas of the house ie bedroom , bathroom even on
> cricket bat, duvet, towels and not locked
> toilet.....were a result of crime scene
> contamination and happened after shooting....must
> have been a very physical encounter before things
> really got messy in the toilet.....:

Muhti,the strategy started ,very effectively,at the bail hearing!