PaulC Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 this forensic evidence about the bat, are they saying that he shot through the door, then put his legs on? or that he had his legs on all the time? or that he didnt have them on? what are they actually arguing? would have thought the ballistics would have been better at showing if he was on his legs or not the defence arguing that he was bent over, and that the door was partly missing and had been tampered with doesnt make it sound that clear cut The prosecution have accepted that he didn't have his legs on when he shot through the door, what they are arguing is the fact that Pistorius claimed he put them on before he bashed through the door with the cricket bat but todays witness is claiming its very iikely that he didn't have his legs on. Still think the trial is in the balance myself. Its up to how the judge sees it and being a non white lady(Hope thats acceptable) well who knows what decision she will come to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HongKongVillan Posted March 12, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 12, 2014 this forensic evidence about the bat, are they saying that he shot through the door, then put his legs on? or that he had his legs on all the time? or that he didnt have them on? what are they actually arguing? would have thought the ballistics would have been better at showing if he was on his legs or not the defence arguing that he was bent over, and that the door was partly missing and had been tampered with doesnt make it sound that clear cut The prosecution have accepted that he didn't have his legs on when he shot through the door, what they are arguing is the fact that Pistorius claimed he put them on before he bashed through the door with the cricket bat but todays witness is claiming its very iikely that he didn't have his legs on. Still think the trial is in the balance myself. Its up to how the judge sees it and being a non white lady(Hope thats acceptable) well who knows what decision she will come to. Think i read somewhere today this points out that he frist bashed the door with cricket bat without his legs, but failed to bashed it open, then he took his gun and fired at the door. completely contradict his statement and means that he was not in what he calls "defensive" situation, he was the agressor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 That's the prosecution argument anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 this forensic evidence about the bat, are they saying that he shot through the door, then put his legs on? or that he had his legs on all the time? or that he didnt have them on? what are they actually arguing? would have thought the ballistics would have been better at showing if he was on his legs or not the defence arguing that he was bent over, and that the door was partly missing and had been tampered with doesnt make it sound that clear cut The prosecution have accepted that he didn't have his legs on when he shot through the door, what they are arguing is the fact that Pistorius claimed he put them on before he bashed through the door with the cricket bat but todays witness is claiming its very iikely that he didn't have his legs on. Still think the trial is in the balance myself. Its up to how the judge sees it and being a non white lady(Hope thats acceptable) well who knows what decision she will come to. Think i read somewhere today this points out that he frist bashed the door with cricket bat without his legs, but failed to bashed it open, then he took his gun and fired at the door. completely contradict his statement and means that he was not in what he calls "defensive" situation, he was the agressor. Ah that makes sense , was watching the news just now thinking so what if he had his legs on or off when he bashed the door My view is that thanks to the inept police they can't prove without any doubt that he murdered her intentionally so he has to get off Unless he does some Hollywood type confession under pressure from the hero prosecution lawyer during his cross examination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 13, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted March 13, 2014 I still think the food in her stomach and the fact she was wearing shoes make a mockery of his defence personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 13, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 13, 2014 I still think the food in her stomach and the fact she was wearing shoes make a mockery of his defence personally.Not been really following the case but isn't it possible that she got up to get something to eat while he was still asleep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 It is totally possible, not sure how likely it is given that she then got up again 2 hours later and went (presumably) for a post snack poo (in her laced up trainers) She might have done. Is that enough "reasonable doubt?" I'm not sure. The defence will have better luck pulling the forensics and the quality of the investigation to pieces rather than the pathology stuff. Oscar's testimony is key. How convincing will he be defending his own story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I still think the food in her stomach and the fact she was wearing shoes make a mockery of his defence personally. you pig I'm leaving you .. but let me just have a snack before I do ? the timings of it all do seem to be inconsistent though , the reasons for this are as of yet unclear presumably if she was planning on leaving him following a row she would have packed a bag of some description ? don't know about everyone else but I tend to put my shoes on last thing before i go out the door , not before I've packed etc I've not followed it that closely but I've not heard of any mention of a bag etc but I was under the impression she didn't live there with him and would therefore have one ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I think were missing a key piece of information that Oscar and his team are keeping to themselves. Right now, nothing adds up. Partly due to the shambolic prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HongKongVillan Posted March 13, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 13, 2014 It is totally possible, not sure how likely it is given that she then got up again 2 hours later and went (presumably) for a post snack poo (in her laced up trainers) Then fresh poo as evidence is very important. unless Oscar can convince the rest that the poo was flashed before he took shot, and he thought it was the intruder, whom nature was calling for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 It is totally possible, not sure how likely it is given that she then got up again 2 hours later and went (presumably) for a post snack poo (in her laced up trainers) Then fresh poo as evidence is very important. unless Oscar can convince the rest that the poo was flashed before he took shot, and he thought it was the intruder, whom nature was calling for? was there a number 2 in the bowl ? if so that adds more to his case surely .. you don't have a huge row hide from a irate boyfriend in the toilet and then have a poo before storming off back home ... maybe you'd leave a poo on the bathroom floor if you were really angry with him but not in the toilet ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 13, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted March 13, 2014 I still think the food in her stomach and the fact she was wearing shoes make a mockery of his defence personally. Not been really following the case but isn't it possible that she got up to get something to eat while he was still asleep? And put her trainers on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility for someone to put shoes on to walk around the house. I know I do. Edited March 13, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 13, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted March 13, 2014 I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility for someone to put shoes on to walk around the house. I know I do. Do you do it at 2am to go to your bathroom ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 A jog for a log? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roonst83 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Should Oscar be found guilty - what's the likely punishment over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Life imprisonment Should Oscar be found guilty - what's the likely punishment over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility for someone to put shoes on to walk around the house. I know I do. Do you do it at 2am to go to your bathroom ? Even less likely with an en suite bathroom. It's not exactly an outside khazi in an Aberdeen winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Yes, its possible to say "this" or "that" isn't an impossibility but its flipping unlikely. Combine lots of very unlikely potential scenarios and you've got this case. I assume the judge is not an idiot (!) and can apply the required amount of common sense to the evidence on offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 We've got an outside throne room. Nothing to do with the Pistorius case, but thought I'd share that bit of news anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts