IS HE GUILTY?
- Muhtiman
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 8933
- Thanks: 1014
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
......you can see where Roux is going when he was badgering Ms Kruger about shots and cricket bat bangs......the hubby heard differently....more than four....she stands by four......he is going to turn the Krugers in on each other thus bringing her statement into probable doubt....:S
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Saksy
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Haupie
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 2701
- Thanks: 151
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
gregbucks Wrote:
> Will get interesting when the evidence for
> premeditated murder is presented??
>
>
> Haupie is a lawyer i think, would like his
> opinion.
Hey GB and the other keen followers of this tragic soapie. It is best I keep this brief as I will get into trouble. However, I cannot understand the strategy of the defence counsel. Michelle Burger's evidence was she heard screams. She heard gunshots. She heard noises. She does not know Reeva's voice. She does not know who screamed or fired the gunshots. As far as I can gather the court cannot take judicial notice that Reeva screamed before Oscar fired the shots. There will have to be direct evidence of this.
Why then all these questions to the witnesses? If no one can link Reeva's screams to the folowing gunshots, there is nothing further to say.
Let's use an example: I prang my car and run away. The cops arrive on the scene and track me to a pub where I am drinking. Can they charge me with driving inder the influence? Without direct evidence that I was in the driver's seat at the time of the prang, they will NEVER get a conviction. Remember, I do not have to testify.
The state will have trouble with all the substantial evidence and the expert evidence will have to be very convincing to change the way this case is going.
As long as Oscar sticks to his story, he should walk.
Remember, the test is not whether he is telling the truth. It is whether his version of the events is reasonably possibly true.
Sadly, I would like to see the state present a better case than they have so far. Not their fault, just circumstance. Lets hope somewhere along the course of this trial the truth will come out
> Will get interesting when the evidence for
> premeditated murder is presented??
>
>
> Haupie is a lawyer i think, would like his
> opinion.
Hey GB and the other keen followers of this tragic soapie. It is best I keep this brief as I will get into trouble. However, I cannot understand the strategy of the defence counsel. Michelle Burger's evidence was she heard screams. She heard gunshots. She heard noises. She does not know Reeva's voice. She does not know who screamed or fired the gunshots. As far as I can gather the court cannot take judicial notice that Reeva screamed before Oscar fired the shots. There will have to be direct evidence of this.
Why then all these questions to the witnesses? If no one can link Reeva's screams to the folowing gunshots, there is nothing further to say.
Let's use an example: I prang my car and run away. The cops arrive on the scene and track me to a pub where I am drinking. Can they charge me with driving inder the influence? Without direct evidence that I was in the driver's seat at the time of the prang, they will NEVER get a conviction. Remember, I do not have to testify.
The state will have trouble with all the substantial evidence and the expert evidence will have to be very convincing to change the way this case is going.
As long as Oscar sticks to his story, he should walk.
Remember, the test is not whether he is telling the truth. It is whether his version of the events is reasonably possibly true.
Sadly, I would like to see the state present a better case than they have so far. Not their fault, just circumstance. Lets hope somewhere along the course of this trial the truth will come out
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Haupie
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 2701
- Thanks: 151
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
GB just a qualification: I am an ex lawyer. Practised as such for 18 years. Appeared in every court in the country except the Constitutional court. Retired from practise 4 years ago. Defended any criminal, murederers, rapists, child molesters, robbers, Hijackers, petty thieves, drunk drivers, you name it.
Finished close on 200 divorces. Acted for many plaintiffs and defendants in civil suits. Fought for illegal casinos against the gambling board. Acted for the poorest of the poor against abuse by the State and big corporations.
In the end, it was the incompetence of the bench that made me quit. When people who were clerks in the dept of justice became prosecutors and magistrates, and the police effectively had their hands tied behind their backs, I saw where justice in this country was heading. Just 1 or 2 absurd examplles: We attend debtors court. I call the debtors name 3x without reply. In court I ask for a warrant of arrest as the debtor is absent. The MAGISTRATE says 'No I am here and I want to pay R200-00 per month'. In another case there was a collision at an intersection. The vehicle skipping the stop sign is awared 40 percent of his damages! To top it all the innocent guy got 80%. HUH????
Only after our 'grand' constitution was it possible for an accused to see a copy of the docket before a trial. Imagine how Oscar's team would have battled if they did not have every statement of every state witness when preparing for trial?
The law has changed tremendously in the past 20 years. That is not what I aspired as a young law student. That is why I am out
Finished close on 200 divorces. Acted for many plaintiffs and defendants in civil suits. Fought for illegal casinos against the gambling board. Acted for the poorest of the poor against abuse by the State and big corporations.
In the end, it was the incompetence of the bench that made me quit. When people who were clerks in the dept of justice became prosecutors and magistrates, and the police effectively had their hands tied behind their backs, I saw where justice in this country was heading. Just 1 or 2 absurd examplles: We attend debtors court. I call the debtors name 3x without reply. In court I ask for a warrant of arrest as the debtor is absent. The MAGISTRATE says 'No I am here and I want to pay R200-00 per month'. In another case there was a collision at an intersection. The vehicle skipping the stop sign is awared 40 percent of his damages! To top it all the innocent guy got 80%. HUH????
Only after our 'grand' constitution was it possible for an accused to see a copy of the docket before a trial. Imagine how Oscar's team would have battled if they did not have every statement of every state witness when preparing for trial?
The law has changed tremendously in the past 20 years. That is not what I aspired as a young law student. That is why I am out
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- wonbyamile
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 4865
- Thanks: 121
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
didnt oscar originally mention that he got out of bed to get the fan from his balcony wen he heard sounds coming from the bathroom? he then went for his gun and fired through the bathroom door thinking/assuming that it was an intruder?
it just doesnt make any sense to me if the above is correct.
it just doesnt make any sense to me if the above is correct.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Mac
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 12013
- Thanks: 940
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- wonbyamile
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 4865
- Thanks: 121
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
Mac Wrote:
> Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
like soupmeat
> Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
like soupmeat
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- mr hawaii
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 20068
- Thanks: 2653
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
wonbyamile Wrote:
> Mac Wrote:
>
>
> > Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
>
>
> like soupmeat
I wish I was that useless at 40-50k per day
> Mac Wrote:
>
>
> > Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
>
>
> like soupmeat
I wish I was that useless at 40-50k per day
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Mac
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 12013
- Thanks: 940
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
mr hawaii Wrote:
> wonbyamile Wrote:
>
>
> > Mac Wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> > > Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
> >
> >
> > like soupmeat
>
> I wish I was that useless at 40-50k per day
It just goes to show that anyone can do anything...
> wonbyamile Wrote:
>
>
> > Mac Wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> > > Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
> >
> >
> > like soupmeat
>
> I wish I was that useless at 40-50k per day
It just goes to show that anyone can do anything...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- davetheflower
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 11060
- Thanks: 534
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
I find it amazing that there is no jury..
The verdict is in the hands of one person alone.
Not saying the judge is bent,but it's easier to nobble one person than it is 12.
The verdict is in the hands of one person alone.
Not saying the judge is bent,but it's easier to nobble one person than it is 12.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- gregbucks
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
mr hawaii Wrote:
> wonbyamile Wrote:
>
>
> > Mac Wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> > > Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
> >
> >
> > like soupmeat
>
> I wish I was that useless at 40-50k per day
why do you guys say he is useless??
> wonbyamile Wrote:
>
>
> > Mac Wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> > > Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
> >
> >
> > like soupmeat
>
> I wish I was that useless at 40-50k per day
why do you guys say he is useless??
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- mr hawaii
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 20068
- Thanks: 2653
Re: Re: IS HE GUILTY?
11 years 3 months ago
Mac Wrote:
> mr hawaii Wrote:
>
>
> > wonbyamile Wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> > > Mac Wrote:
> > >
> >
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
> > >
> > >
> > > like soupmeat
> >
> > I wish I was that useless at 40-50k per day
>
>
> It just goes to show that anyone can do
> anything...
I wonder if you still think that after the way he has torn poor Mr Johnson apart and thus also cast doubt on Burger
> mr hawaii Wrote:
>
>
> > wonbyamile Wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> > > Mac Wrote:
> > >
> >
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Pistorius' lawyer is useless ...
> > >
> > >
> > > like soupmeat
> >
> > I wish I was that useless at 40-50k per day
>
>
> It just goes to show that anyone can do
> anything...
I wonder if you still think that after the way he has torn poor Mr Johnson apart and thus also cast doubt on Burger
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.121 seconds