[Mr Mercury]

Been following the trial avidly on Sky News over the last few weeks..well the tongue in cheek market that Paddy Power offered had him odds on to get off..Really!
If he isn't found guilty of murder then it's time to pack in..more holes in his story than a whole lorry load of polos!

[calvin plummers socks]

I'm hoping he gets off

[Mr Mercury]

calvin plummers socks, on 13 April 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

I'm hoping he gets off

May I ask why?

[Mr Mercury]

Dema Reborn, on 14 April 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

I don't think he has got a leg to stand on...of getting off lol...

Tut tut Keith..
He's been absolutely destroyed in court today , the Sky corespondent described him as constantly changing his story, contradicting himself, evasive, unsure and vague. Also I think his false wails and emotional outbursts are starting to wear very thin in the court!

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 14 April 2014 - 05:15 PM

[Bluebelle]

Not seen so much ham acting since the last muppet movie

[fishini]

calvin plummers socks, on 13 April 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

I'm hoping he gets off

Come on answer the question. Why?

[calvin plummers socks]

Mr Mercury, on 14 April 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

May I ask why?

Purely sentimental reasons!
Spent some time on a training camp with him a few years ago and was the nicest sweetest guy!
Cant say much about the case as haven't really followed the ins and outs.
In SA can he be convicted on a lesser manslaughter charge (as there is no doubt he shot her)- or is it purely a premeditated murder charge?

[Mr Mercury]

calvin plummers socks, on 14 April 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

Purely sentimental reasons!
Spent some time on a training camp with him a few years ago and was the nicest sweetest guy!
Cant say much about the case as haven't really followed the ins and outs.
In SA can he be convicted on a lesser manslaughter charge (as there is no doubt he shot her)- or is it purely a premeditated murder charge?

Yes there is a lesser man slaughter charge but it's being argued that if he fired 4 shots through a door at a person , regardless who it might have been, then that is premeditated murder. That's one of the reasons his story keeps changing, like now saying the gun was fired in reaction.
Also the point you make about his public personna as been picked over at length. In public he is a sweet, honest helpful guy, but in private or with close friends he his obsessed with guns, with which he has an almost idiotic lack of respect for, prone to jealous rages and shouting matches and a very controlling person.

[Mr Mercury]

Bluebelle, on 14 April 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

Not seen so much ham acting since the last muppet movie

It's difficult to draw direct comparisons because you can only hear Pistorious in the dock and not see him, but his emotional outburst and cries remind me of the Philpot trial were the lack of tears and fake sobs was pretty obvious to everyone who saw it. Pistorious sounds very similar, but like I said difficult to say with any certainty because we, the tv viewer, can't see him..but the judge can!

[Middle East]

calvin plummers socks, on 14 April 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

Purely sentimental reasons!
Spent some time on a training camp with him a few years ago and was the nicest sweetest guy!
Cant say much about the case as haven't really followed the ins and outs.
In SA can he be convicted on a lesser manslaughter charge (as there is no doubt he shot her)- or is it purely a premeditated murder charge?

Yeah and we all can be really sweet! But that doesnt (despite my posts to the contrary) mean we really all are....

I hope he gets life. I know what and what isnt evidence and that man is guilty as sin!

Unless our resident legal expert h again begs to differ of course......

[Mr Mercury]

Absolute disaster for the defence calling their first "expert witness"..
Expert witness Roger Dixon, is proved to be less than expert on many occasions..
You're called as a ballistics expert, are you?....No
You're called as an expert on firearm injuries, are you!....No.
Were you present when the audible tests for the sound of a cricket bat hitting the bathroom door compared to bullets fired at the door tests were carried out?....No
Do you follow this trial in the media?..No, I don't own a TV or a radio, or indeed read the news papers because I'm trying to keep myself separate from the media in this trial... yet he's been tweeting on a regular basis about the trial!
When examining the prosphetic (spelling apologies) what are your conclusions re the worn sock...it's the first time ive seen this !
When asked about the lighting tests he carried out in the bedroom, what light meters did he use?..non i used my eye sight!..
Did you carry out these light tests at the time of the shooting?...no, 3 days ago!
Also he had to apologise ..twice.. to the judge this morning for misleading the court about his evidence!
And the best of all regarding the position of the magazine rack in the toilet cubicle Reeva died in..his evidence totally contradicts that of Pistorius regarding its location and why it was there when she was shot!
Someone stop this farce now and put Reeva's family out of their pain regarding what happened that night!...

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 17 April 2014 - 10:18 PM

[moondog]

Mr Mercury, on 17 April 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

Absolute disaster for the defence calling their first "expert witness"..
Expert witness Roger Dixon, is proved to be less than expert on many occasions..
You're called as a ballistics expert, are you?....No
You're called as an expert on firearm injuries, are you!....No.
Were you present when the audible tests for the sound of a cricket bat hitting the bathroom door compared to bullets fired at the door tests were carried out?....No
Do you follow this trial in the media?..No, I don't own a TV or a radio, or indeed read the news papers because I'm trying to keep myself separate from the media in this trial... yet he's been tweeting on a regular basis about the trial!
When examining the prosphetic (spelling apologies) what are your conclusions re the worn sock...it's the first time ive seen this !
When asked about the lighting tests he carried out in the bedroom, what light meters did he use?..non i used my eye sight!..
Did you carry out these light tests at the time of the shooting?...no, 3 days ago!
Also he had to apologise ..twice.. to the judge this morning for misleading the court about his evidence!
And the best of all regarding the position of the magazine rack in the toilet cubicle Reeva died in..his evidence totally contradicts that of Pistorius regarding its location and why it was there when she was shot!
Someone stop this farce now and put Reeva's family out of their pain regarding what happened that night!...

Agreed but they have to go through the due process, the experts and lawyers, in fact everyone, is milking it for what it's worth, spinning it out because it makes for good tv, how long would such a trial have lasted for joe public, 2 weeks max I would have thought

[Mr Mercury]

moondog, on 17 April 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

Agreed but they have to go through the due process, the experts and lawyers, in fact everyone, is milking it for what it's worth, spinning it out because it makes for good tv, how long would such a trial have lasted for joe public, 2 weeks max I would have thought

Of course they do moondog, it was a sort of hypothetical statement..but jeez if this bloke gets off its one hell of a statement on SA law!

[moondog]

Mr Mercury, on 18 April 2014 - 01:25 AM, said:

Of course they do moondog, it was a sort of hypothetical statement..but jeez if this bloke gets off its one hell of a statement on SA law!

I think the fact it's televised means justice will be served, although it's a bit embarassing that they've now got have a 2+ week break because one of the lawyers has another case, on top of the joke expert Dixon

[Middle East]

Mr Mercury, on 18 April 2014 - 01:25 AM, said:

Of course they do moondog, it was a sort of hypothetical statement..but jeez if this bloke gets off its one hell of a statement on SA law!

Totally agreed Merc, but remember the trial by TV farce of a certain OJ Simpson.......what did that say about US law!

This post has been edited by Middle East: 18 April 2014 - 07:07 AM

[Mr Mercury]

Middle East, on 18 April 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

Totally agreed Merc, but remember the trial by TV farce of a certain OJ Simpson.......what did that say about US law!

I never really followed that as avidly but do you think the deciding judge had, quite wrongly of course, one eye on the possible social reaction to an OJ guilty verdict?

[Middle East]

Mr Mercury, on 18 April 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

I never really followed that as avidly but do you think the deciding judge had, quite wrongly of course, one eye on the possible social reaction to an OJ guilty verdict?

100% mate. Celebrity aside he was an icon to millions of African Americans and the race issue definitely played its part along side his made for tv grandstanding attorney!

At the end of the day he fled the house, had a slow speed car chase, had blood stains on him and was the only person there at the time of the murders. I can't remember where the murder weapon was found but he basically got off by his lawyer saying the glove worn by the killer didn't fit him!!!!

Call me Sherlock Holmes but........