General Discussion Thread #1 -Bail Hearing

[Lola]

Nair questions the possibility that the urine was released as a result of the trauma. Roux: it's a possibility. BB

#OscarPistorius Nair couldn't Reeva have emptied her bladder an hour before the shooting? Roux: there was NO urine in it. BB

#OscarPistorius Nair: could Reeva have just asked "what wrong"? Roux: ... and announce herself in the face of imminant danger? BB

 

[otyikondo]

I so so agree with you, been in plenty debates before the bail application that most details were comming from "sources" and someone who knows a friend, who knows a friend, who is second cousins with another person who is close to the case-details seen on twitter. It was ridiculous. No details were confirmed by police except that Oscar had shot and killed Reeva.

Ultimately, it has done the defence an enormous favour.

After people had the very worst worst-case scenarios thrown at them, including the idea of him bludgeoning this poor woman over the head before or after shooting her, possibly even shooting her once and then running after her to finish her off...

...then shooting these obvious sitting ducks down was all part of the process of explaining it was all a ghastly and "mortifying" (where on EARTH did he dredge THAT inappropriate word up from to use in the context of having just killed one's girlfriend?) mistake.

 

[Carol70]

interesting point on dressed?! these were NOT her nightclothes?

I think he means more to the fact that her pants were pulled up and not around her feet suggesting she was shot while on the loo. kwim?

 

[Lola]

14:06 - Roux on witness who was 600m away: Why put something in a way that you create a wrong inference? [The] prosecution trying to mislead.

14:05 - Roux: When you read [the] witness statement of the woman who said she heard a row,there's an "irresistable inference" she could ID people [and] was nearby.

14:04 - Roux basically saying that there are all kinds of possibilities, but the court should look at probabilities, says Phillip de Wet.

14:03 - Roux: I received an email from a person telling me he knew who had broken into [Pistorius's] house.

 

[Lola]

Nair don't you think a heated argument with the sliding door open could be heard at some distance? Roux: What distance? BB

#OscarPistorius Roux: saying that the statement was not from a neighbour, but someone wholives far away. BB

#OscarPistorius Roux onto the witness statements claiming she heard screaming the hour before the shooting. BB

 

[Lola]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan
Nair: in dead of night, with balcony door open, that a heated argument would not have been audible? #OscarPistorius @eNCAnews

Nair: there is no evidence that there was any loud music. It was dead of night.. Shots would obviously have been loud @eNCAnews

Roux: state must decide what it wants to disclose or not (about case against #OscarPistorius) but it must live with that decision @eNCAnews

Roux: difficulty is that statements re "argument" didn't come from #OscarPistorius neighbors. @eNCAnews

Roux hammers state for using statement of witness who said she heard "noise like argument" hour before shooting, but couldn't ID voices

 

[Carol70]

Ultimately, it has done the defence an enormous favour.

After people had the very worst worst-case scenarios thrown at them, including the idea of him bludgeoning this poor woman over the head before or after shooting her, possibly even shooting her once and then running after her to finish her off...

...then shooting these obvious sitting ducks down was all part of the process of explaining it was all a ghastly and "mortifying" (where on EARTH did he dredge THAT inappropriate word up from to use in the context of having just killed one's girlfriend?) mistake.

Interestingly, this is not the first I have heard this...I saw it debated that feeding the public with scandalous/horrific tit-bits was the genius of Oscars PR team. All speculation of course!

 

[Lola]

Roux: the IO, at all costs, adheres to evidence which serves to persuade the court not to grant bail. BB

Roux: the IO was not a credible witness. We cannot sit back and take comfort that he is telling the full truth. BB

#OscarPistorius Roux: the IO then introduces the evidence of the woman who heard screaming and the shots - a vague piece of evidence. BB

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have serious concerns about what we know and don't know about this case. I am not sure I trust all we've heard do far.

 

[jandkmom]

This seems to be the worse case of witnesses, evidence gathering, and law enforcement testimony since the OJ case. All we need now is that something doesn't fit and it will be over...such a shame for the victim.

 

[Lola]

Roux: the IO admitted that he knew of no phone call that could have formed part of a pre-planned offence. BB

 

[Carol70]

South African journalists are tweeting that there will be a police press conference at 4pm local time (2pm GMT) announcing that Botha has been taken off the case. More details soon ...

 

[Lola]

I have serious concerns about what we know and don't know about this case. I am not sure I trust all we've heard do far.

most of what we've heard til now is press....therein lies the problem. the press is very unreliable these days both printed and TV -- twitter, etc just carries the message and by the overwheling repetition somehow seems to make it true.

i'm always surprised at how despite taking things with a grain of salt...i get sucked in

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This seems to be the worse case of witnesses, evidence gathering, and law enforcement testimony since the OJ case. All we need now is that something doesn't fit and it will be over...such a shame for the victim.

I have to think that this could have been an accident until they prove murder to me and right now they are not.

 

[Lola]

Roux: we've raised our concern that the IO maintained Oscar was a flight risk even after his concessions. BB

#OscarPistorius Roux: the IO testimony was designed to bolster the state's case. BB

 

[Carol70]

Roux says there are no witnesses and the case will be decided on forensic evidence. He says you cannot confuse an argument with pre-planned murder.

- I cant help but feel there actually may have been an argument that night??? Roux has alluded to it twice now or am i reading too much into it??

 

[Lola]

we differ on that score Scarlett, IMHO he wanted to kill whoever was in that bathroom. whether he knew it was Reeva or thought it was a burglar. his intent was to do harm. major harm

 

[otyikondo]

I have serious concerns about what we know and don't know about this case. I am not sure I trust all we've heard do far.

It IS "only" a bail hearing. Unfortunately the prosecution have discovered that it takes longer to get one's ducks in a row (re: forensics, ballistics, etc.) than when it's done in a TV thriller. They've looked hopelessly under-rehearsed. We have to hope that they will put up a better showing in the real trial. But right now OP will walk away to await the trial.

And I tend to agree with Lola. The defendant intended to kill someone. He may not have killed quite whom he thought he was killing. But you cannot go around unloading pistols into WC doors without sanctions. Even in SA.

 

[Lola]

- I cant help but feel there actually may have been an argument that night??? Roux has alluded to it twice now or am i reading too much into it??

agree Carol. he knows more on that score than the prosecution knows at this point I suspect and he's playing CYA

 

[Lola]

Roux: we appeal for you to find there exists no objective facts to show this is a schedule 6 offence. BB