Oscar - SA's OJ case

[Alice Rain]

I'm waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start coming along, thanx much appreciated!

[Alice Rain]

I wish I could read what the captions say, but don't have time to figure it out! Yes, definitely SA's OJ case!

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

Regarding similiar statements -
The very nature of cross-examination is to test if a witness is telling the truth.
Therefore, taking 3 statements, that are the same, and saying "hey, it must be true" would make no sense.
Once all 3 witnesses, for eg, have all said teh same thing, then the chances are, that it must be true.
What defence counsel is hinting at, is that the witnesses have started telling a story, that they believe happened, and not what they actually recall or heard. (not uncommon amongst witnesses even without media coverage).
It should also be considered, that the prosecution (witnesses advocate as such) could stand up and say the question has been asked or answered and such forth, as he did on a few occassions.

[desA]

Now, how would the game change if SA law were to have the basic premise : Guilty, until proven innocent?

Innocent, until proven guilty - seems to allow all types of distortions & theatrics. With the first - generally French-based, as I understand - the perp/suspect has less opportunity to disrupt the search for truth. In SE Asia, I've seen the 'Guilty, until proven innocent' logic at work. It works well.

[newBix]

Regarding similiar statements -
The very nature of cross-examination is to test if a witness is telling the truth.
Therefore, taking 3 statements, that are the same, and saying "hey, it must be true" would make no sense.
Once all 3 witnesses, for eg, have all said teh same thing, then the chances are, that it must be true.
What defence counsel is hinting at, is that the witnesses have started telling a story, that they believe happened, and not what they actually recall or heard. (not uncommon amongst witnesses even without media coverage).
It should also be considered, that the prosecution (witnesses advocate as such) could stand up and say the question has been asked or answered and such forth, as he did on a few occassions.

i am not a Guru, i don't know what is possible and what wasn't possible. Here is my take 10 people go out and take statements right. Now they hear possibly the same thing over and over again from a lot of people. Now I am not saying it did happen, but what if one of those people that took the statements hinted a witness and said "yes we know the clock dinged 3 times" In the mean time the witness was thinking "the clock dinged few times" no specific number but because the person taking the statement said " the clock dinged 3 times" they simply agree and said "YES" the clock dinged 3 times.

See yesterday they hinted that "statements looked the same" not because they are telling the same story but because some bits might have been copied from one statement to the next. If that is indeed true then surely that will create some doubt. and really that is all that they need at this stage.

[newBix]

Now, how would the game change if SA law were to have the basic premise : Guilty, until proven innocent?

Innocent, until proven guilty - seems to allow all types of distortions & theatrics. With the first - generally French-based, as I understand - the perp/suspect has less opportunity to disrupt the search for truth. In SE Asia, I've seen the 'Guilty, until proven innocent' logic at work. It works well.

Ok you drive around and some random jerk accuse you of trying to kill him. You get arrested put in jail until your hearing. Because they assume you are guilty your bail application is more than what you can earn because in there minds "yes we are dealing with a horrible person".

Then you remain in prison “losing your job getting blacklisted losing your house” and by the time they get you in court it doesn’t matter because “tiny the local prison mascot” had his way with you and now you have HIV along with legal debt along with losing your job your home and possibly your livelihood.

innocent till proven guilty tanks...

[desA]

innocent till proven guilty tanks...

That's because SA's mindsets & operational psychology have built themselves around the principle of 'Innocent, until proven guilty'.

In Asia, the local police & arbitrators deal with things on the ground. The general EQ (emotional quotient) of the surrounding populace seems to be far higher than SA. Your proposed scenarios can exist, but are extremely rare.

The tribal law in SA probably solves more problems than they are given credit for. I'd wonder what the prevailing world view is in the tribal world view, in SA?

[pmbguy]

Ok you think there is someone in your house you wip out your big ass gun. Now you walk bravely to where this criminal is steeling your toilet seat. You pull the trigger hitting who ever behind the door. Now if it was me behind the door being shot at I would scream surrender I would piss myself I would take dump in my undies.

Here is what is said. The first shot was followed by a pause! Now don't you think that the person that was hit by a bullet would have screamed or something in that few seconds? I mean if you ever hurt yourself you know that "OOOOOOOOoouch!!!!" is instantaneous

Here is my biggest question, why was the door locked? We know it was locked because he had to break the door down. There is just 2 people in the house they are sleeping together and she locks the door when using the toilet?

It depends on the order of the bullet impacts. Many fatal gunshot wounds do not allow for the victim to shout “ouch!”.

The locked door does seem to show she was afraid, trying to keep him away, but some people do lock the bathroom door.

If I remember correctly he said that he shouted “hey intruder!” (whatever) and there was no response, perhaps she got frightened by the shouting, did not recognize him, and quickly locked the door(Defence argues).

[IanF]

I listened in the car today and could not manage more than 5 minutes, I have a short attention span. The clarifications sought are tedious but that is the job of the lawyers and obviously a lot of mental stamina is needed.

[Mike C]

Ok so it may be a bit off-topic. But what do the judges do during a break like today. Do they have other legal matters to which they need to give their attention? Do they deal with reviewing what they have heard? Or do they go shopping?

Just curious.

[Hermes14]

It depends on the order of the bullet impacts. Many fatal gunshot wounds do not allow for the victim to shout “ouch!”.

The locked door does seem to show she was afraid, trying to keep him away, but some people do lock the bathroom door.

If I remember correctly he said that he shouted “hey intruder!” (whatever) and there was no response, perhaps she got frightened by the shouting, did not recognize him, and quickly locked the door(Defence argues).

When you have been shot your body goes into shock & you only start feeling the pain after your body has started absorbing the shock.
The last thing you thinks about is shouting.

[desA]

Scenario:

1. Argument;
2. OP threatens RS with gun;
3. Reeva screams in fear;
4. Reeva runs to bathroom, locks door, tries phoning out for help;
5. Oscar screams for help to show possible robbery-in-progress;
6. Shoots Reeva through door, in anger.

Premeditated, through & through. Only the devilish lies & attack by his paid liar & bully (attorney), may stave off the inevitable. This man is a cold-blooded murderer.

Was it Voltaire who said : Kill the lawyers first?

[newBix]

To be fair to both sides they do have a job to do and must do it to the best of their abilities. If it means pulling a witness a part like angry pack of wild dogs then that is what they will do. To be fair to "OS" he is fighting for his life. to be fair to "RS" she lost her life so government must now act and find the truth.

The court is in the process to figure out what statements are valid and it a nasty process...

[Dave A]

Was it Voltaire who said : Kill the lawyers first?

Nope. It was a product of that old bard, William Shakespeare.

Cade: Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny, the three-hooped pot shall have ten hoops, and I will make it felony to drink small beer; all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass; and when I am king, as king I will be, there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.
Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Cade: Nay, that I mean to do.

William Shakespeare, Henry the Sixth, Part II, IV, ii (1623), suggesting that all lawyers would have to die in order to impose his will as king.

[desA]

Thank you, Dave.

A lovely quotation indeed.