This is very odd. And tragic.
Obviously it's tragic and they're might be something I'm missing but it seems weird that the reason has been attached when there are no witnesses and he hasn't even been questioned yet. Just seems a bit keen to make it sound like its definitely wasn't his fault.
It's a pretty weak defence. If it gets to trial he's not going to have a leg to stand on.
That's set my day up nicely.
so I could have stolen your thunder JGJug.
Journalists aren't particularly keen on admitting they don't have a clue what's going on.
they don't know for sure that he shot her either
Don't go near those guys you thought were drunken tramps.
but unless it was a shotgun into the face at close range, a gun's not really going to do the trick, is it?
but not on the Music Forum.
D': DiS Problems.
Mortelle Saint Valentin, 'Deadly Valentine',which isn't so classy'
They spoke to a correspondent who said he didn't really know any more than the bare bones of the story, so they went live to a Bild journalist who was waiting outside the gates of the estate, who revealed... that he didn't really know any more than the bare bones of the story. But did some speculating anyway.
No, back to you, Paul
Actually, back to YOU Jim, etc.
I hate it when they do it. LOOK HE'S THERE SO HE KNOWS MORE THAN WE DO.
I reckon she was boffing that Brazilian fella who beat him last year and he found out about it.
SEND HIM DOWN
that's really sad
and it's incredible people are falling over themselves to make jokes. You are total bellends
I am really sorry.
He shot someone in the head, the twonk.
I know violent burglary is pretty rife in South Africa, but that doesn't mean you should go KERBLAMMO as soon as someone walks in your front door. I don't recall Phil Spector being afforded the same benefit of the doubt when that story broke.
Frankly, given all the gun violence in the media recently, I don't understand why anyone with a gun hasn't buried it ten feet underground in a locked safe already.
Funny that. You're totally right though, I can't see why people aren't chomping at the bit to condemn a man who's hugely respected and idolised around the world and has no reputation for doing anything even remotely like this, before the facts come in. It sure is a puzzler.
Which means I'm not jumping to the `Prolly though it wuz a burgular` verdict.
I'm also thinking up some bad taste jokes on the subject.
Neither me, you or anyone who doesn't personally know him really knows what he's like behind closed doors.
I tend to talk the view that shooting at someone isn't acceptable under any circumstance, regardless of whether you can walk. So you liked watching him win a race, doesn't mean you should be making excuses for him.
We're saying it might be best to wait until we actually know what happened before leaping to judgement.
And this was mentioned early on in almost every report I saw.
Glad to see I was thoroughly proved wrong on this one
Gonna start shouting this at football
I got tickets for the Paralympics last year primarily to see him. At the end he did an interview as well - they had a backlog of medal ceremonies so this was a way to try and get people to stay until the end of those, which I did. Don't really know what to say.
they were handing out medals to killers..
do all paralympians have the killer gene??
I feel for your loss.
doubt he meant anything like that by it. of all the posts in the thread you pick out this one?
Give me a chance
you should have picked out the one where somebody got confused by the whole shooting a dead girlfriend part.
Of course I don't have a personal connection to this, duh. I just thought he was cool and this is all very sad. You know, this being an Internet forum and that, sometimes sad things happen with music types too, and fans of said music type come on here and say "it's sad". Which is hardly profound of any of us, but so what?
now i look like even more of a monstrous tit
Violets are glorious
Don't sneak up on
that loads of ripe for punnage news stories (pretty much the horse lasagne and now this)have happened? It's like they are trying to anger me. I expect a live duck to be found in a restaurant later today.
roses are red
violets are glorious
don't try and sneak up
on Oscar Pistorius
This is a massive tragedy. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family right now.
A sexy burglar.
for someone to set up an Oscar Pistorius' girlfriend account to post in meowington's Valentine's thread.
Not long enough
totally ruined athletes that have overcome massive adversity to reach the peak of their discipline for me.
Pretty sure he already knew about it though
as you were
just a tweet mentioning the tweet. i'm so web 2.0
I think it's only due to his status that it's made news. The fear that people live with in that country is horrific. I have known people who have been raped and beaten almost to death by intruders and I completely sympathies with why people reach for a gun when they here someone in their house. It's a horrible state to live in. Whichever way you look at it, he's a 26yr old guy whose life is now ruined.
I bet he hasn't even thought of that.
Guy can't have been short a few quid to go somewhere nice.
It's like living in Chelsea.
So much for that line of defence, then.
They've tried to describe what it's like, and... I think it's almost impossible for someone who's grown up over here to fully comprehend? Just nuts.
Seems somewhat over the top. More the latter than the former.
he once farted underneath the duvet then wafted the coevrs in her direction
and then that's been classified as a 'domestic' and now it's speculated that he did this out of anger. Until there is actual proof that he has a history of violence towards women and her, this is just speculative gossip and for the poor guy who is now having to face a very very fucked up life from here on out, that's just awful.
that they had previously been called to investigate claims (by her) of incidents of a domestic nature
they have charged him with murder
he's going to appear in court on that charge this afternoon
he will be refused bail
Let her speculate that "poor" Oscar can't possibly have done this deliberately because crime in SA is only committed by a certain type of person, that "poor" Oscar definitely isn't. Crazy delusional, but whatever.
(Note, if this was some black SA musician, say, would this defence be jumped to?)
people have all kinds of rational and irrational responses to all kinds of events
live and let live eh?
we're only human
Poor Oscar? Because he's white? You are a bigot. Plane and simple.
Hmm. I see. I would jump to this defence because until a court proves anyone is guilty, then everyone has the right to be seen as innocent. That's just the way I was brought up.
Did you wait until Fritzl was sentenced?
and those are the facts from the get go. Compared to a man who has only just been arrested for something we don't actually have a police statement or any real idea of what's going on other than a few news reports and allegations. Yes. I think you're right in comparing the two.
I was just going on your absolute statement. You know, the way you were brought up was to believe that everyone has the right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty.
she had previously made allegations to the Police about 'incidents of a domestic nature'
it's the Police who've made this statement
he's been charged with murder and refused bail
Genuinely not sure that I've read a weirder (or more disturbing) comment on DiS.
in ^this post
they're great :)
is a normal and healthy part of life.....
Seriously, though. She started by posting something with absolutely no grounds for reasoning (which, gonna get attacked for this, but also seems kind of racist), and then says that 'domestics' are totally a normal and okay thing. (idk why domestics are okay, but all the other violence in SA isn't, but whatever)
So may well have a better insight into perceptions of crime and violence in the country then other people here.
I'm sure she does know more about crime and violence in SA.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that she seemed to naturally assume that is wasn't this guy's fault at all (why?) and that it must be because of the issues with wider crime problems.
There were a few reports that it might have been accidental, but about 5 seconds of searching would have shown that there was no justification for these reports.
Racist? I would love to see you inner workings on how you came up with this conclusion. I'm a white South african, commenting on another White South African but yes, I see how I could come across as racist. And never once did I ever refer to domestic as being the violent abusive nature of the word, it was used in the colloquial sense of having an argument with your partner. And my dear, until you have lived for 24yrs in South Africa, until you've been hijacked, mugged at gun point, had family members attacked and had AK47 shoved into their 3yr old's face, until friends that you know have been violently raped by intruders in their home, well then I guess I would respect every single comment you would have to make on crime in South Africa. But until then perhaps you should go back to whatever it is you're doing in your nice cushy house in a first world country and leave the chat to the big people.
but idk. anyway disputes over the term 'domestic' aside, i hope we can all agree at this point that jumping to the guy's defense and assuming it must have been an accident is not the greatest reaction to the facts as they appear to stand
"idk why domestics are okay, but all the other violence in SA isn't, but whatever"
But yes, misconstrued comments aside. Surely saying he's guilty of a crime is just as bad as defending him? Isn't the idea of innocent until proven guilty the very fabric of a law? Let's not forget that the police are only releasing certain facts. There is speculation and gossip to add to this. So yes, I would like to believe that based on experience of living in that country and the fact that there have (unfortunately) been many many many cases that are of similar ilk in the past that this could be a horrific accident. Yes he's been arrested, why wouldn't he have been? It's still manslaughter, whether it was accidental or not - that's for a court to decide, not a bunch of indie bedwetters.
i'm saying that the 'he thought it was a burglar' defense has now specifically been refuted as baseless by the police, who have also confirmed that there have been previous incidents of domestic abuse, and in light of this framing the case as 'ruining a poor young guy's life' looks an awful lot like the all-too-common excuses made for rich, popular men who are just SUCH nice boys at the expense of the women they abuse and kill
it was about what PM perceived as your attitude to domestic violence specifically
also, we are not a court of law; saying you believe someone is guilty of a crime when the facts available overwhelmingly suggest that they are guilty of a crime is not 'just as bad' as assuming someone is not guilty against all evidence just cos they seem quite nice
is appropriated or misapplied as a moral/epistemological principle, but that's another post innit
next to the time more information about 'abuse allegations and arrests and bail denied' has been released.
And, I in no way say that abusing and killing your partner is acceptable. When did I say that? We don't know the full facts. Just a few. I will reserve judgement until I am clear, is all I am saying. If indeed he did murder her in cold blood, he deserves every horrific thing he will get in a South African jail. And believe you me, that's worse than death.
cos i assumed that in light of that info you would probably have revised your view of the case
it's not necessarily morally better than making judgements based on what are some pretty damning facts, but it's fine
"Allegations of a domestic nature"
" They will be opposing bail" - so he hasn't been denied bail yet
"But police said they were "very surprised" by the reports which they said did not come from them."
So yes, until he appears in front of a magistrate and until there is a police statement. I will hold my comments and accusations to a minimum.
you're definitely coming across as someone who wants him to be found innocent or at the very least wants mitigating circumstances to exonerate
as everyone on here seem to enjoy standing behind.
And, as I have stated not too long ago: "If indeed he did murder her in cold blood, he deserves every horrific thing he will get in a South African jail. And believe you me, that's worse than death."
No ill will
Just tying to save you an afternoon of internet rage
if a little, understandably, frustrated
Because I justifiably would prefer to pass judgment on the situation once the police have released a statement? That I completely understand what it's like to live in perpetual fear and lived in a household where my parents had a gun next to their bed because of a threat of intrusion? If he is indeed guilty then it will soon be revealed, when the police release a statement.
Not quite sure what you're waiting for the Police to say
They've already said the whole burglary narrative was bullshit
that they were surprised to hear that speculation, not that it's bullshit.
because it's bullshit
I didn't realise you'd ruled it out as a possibility.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just saying.
Mainly because there's a massive gulf between that and defending someone who's been found guilty of a crime.
People drawing Fritzel comparisons are bit a weird frankly. There are definitely circumstances in which someone is shot dead by another person and it's an accident; there are absolutely not circumstances in which you can accidentally lock up and rape your daughter. (DiS Sexism squad can just stand down on 'comedy' rebuttals here, thanks.)
Not wanting that to be the case is a pretty natural reaction in the circumstances.
The allegations of a domestic nature involved an incident in 2011. Considering that he and the victim only had been dating each other since November last year it rules out she was the individual who had filed the complaint. There is no evidence there was domestic abuse in their relationship.
they rapin e'body out here
a couple having a domestic doesnt mean domestic abuse.
it could be an argument.. or her storming off cos shes wrong again <safety wink>
I live in PocketMouse's world
'domestic' that is being discussed here. And the frequency and extent seems somewhat relevant even if it is the case that they were of a non-violent nature (which doesn't necessarily make them okay).
but the first post to kick it all off just contained 'domestic', no mention of the po-po or anything
having an argument, and not always connected with violence?
safe to assume it wasn't just an argument over leaving the laundry out....
"what is your emergency?"
"my girlfriend left the laundry out and now I'll have to put it through the wash again, she's so useless"
"okay, we'll send someone over asap, hang tight"
So, yeah, people do call the police about this.
but hey, lets assume when the police said that theyre suprised people are talking about mistaking her for a burglar, and that they'd been involved with domestic incidents in their house before, that they're just talking about innocuous stuff that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that he shot her in the face.................................
1. She didn't live with him. They had only been dating for 2 months. 0 evidence that there was any domestic abuse between them
2. The Domestic incident that everyone is using as a reason, happened in 2011. It could very well have been a verbal fight (like Christian Bale) between a 24yr old and his parents. No one knows as it hasn't been divulged what the incident was.
3. There have been many similar cases worldwide where someone has shot a loved one thinking it was an intruder:
besides it makes him absolutely no less culpable for her murder so it's pretty strange that you're going on about it as if it's all OH POOR OSCAR PISTORIUS WITH HIS IRRATIONAL AND GROTESQUELY VIOLENT PROPENSITY TO SHOOT ANYONE IN THE FACE WHO HAPPENS TO BE IN HIS HOUSE WHEN HE'S NOT SURE WHO IT IS OR WHAT EXACTLY THEY'RE DOING RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT BECAUSE THERE'S A VERY VERY SLIGHT CHANCE THAT A *BURGLAR* GOT THROUGH HIS EXTENSIVE SECURITY AND MIGHT POSSIBLY KILL HIM OH NO.
Secondly, as tiramisu says we're not a court of law. When the police imply that they're looking at it as a murder (i.e. with the intent to kill her, knowing it was her), and mention in relation to this incidents of domestic abuse, it's entirely reasonable to say *well yeah, it doesn't really look good does it*. It's much less reasonable to jump to a possible murderers defence.
My SA friends say that if you were asked to step out of your car by the police there you should flatly refuse, that they're not to be trusted like ours are. (Not that the UK police have a good reputation really but there you go.)
Point 3 was brought up by YOUR post to which she was responding.
Reluctant to get involved in this thread tbh but just had to point out the wrongness of this.
In England at least, honestly mistaken self-defence is a complete defence to murder or anything else. Although the force is required to be necessary and proportionate, judges usually make clear that these requirements needn't be applied too strictly in practice.
Since 2010 it's also been clarified that excessive self-defence out of fear can also sometimes mitigate murder to manslaughter.
Don't know SA law but rules approximately like these are pretty common. I'd be surprised if it's very different.
Again, I am not implying 'poor Oscar', what I am implying is quite rightly we are not a court of law (I believe I made this statement way before Tiramisu said it) and no where has it said it was 'domestic abuse' it says 'domestic incident'. And, I was also pointing out the facts not jumping to anyone's defence. Just because I am not joining the clearly blood hungry lynch mob just yet, does mean I reserve my judgement of this individual once I know all of the facts.
homicide is taking someones life.
nevermind. i'm going to bed.
Because someone left the fridge open last night, and if I could get them arrested I'd be quite happy, tbh. Should I try?
in this context it was probably evident what it means though.
A domestic is definitely shorthand for an argument, mainly because you wouldn't say 'a domestic violence' you'd say 'a domestic argument'.
I don't like the idea of just shortening domestic violence to 'a domestic', least of all because you don't want there to be any ambiguity.
It's not a phrase that I'm a fan of, but i'm used to processing 'a domestic' as 'a barney with a partner', in the same way that the word 'fight' can mean a scenario where there's no insinuation of physical (our even emotional) violence (i.e. an argument).
and secondly, as many have pointed out, a domestic can be seen as just having a row with your partner, no where did I say abuse. Nor did I imply abuse. Perhaps you should try not jumping on the accusatory band wagon.
but I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if he's done her in, always seemed like a right ignorant brat to me.
We could use a guy like you on the force
But this just seems insane.
the Police are treating this as murder and have gone out of their way to quash any notion that it was accidental and have said that the 'mistaken identity' 'burglary' 'valentines' accident theories are entirely NOT from them or any reliable source
but sometimes I love waking up to a batshit story. Realise this is a little sadder than Antony Worrall-Thompson nicking some booze from Tesco.
speaking from South Africa, told Sky News: "If anybody can overcome this sort of thing it's probably Oscar."
There is a certain school of people that don’t particularly like him, but I think today everybody has kind of rallied round him."/
the police really have a sense of drama today
about the roses and violets and stuff?
Bits missing, presumably after a deleted libellous post? The problem is, what's left over is lake to read as (even more) gibberish (than it was in the first place).
Just delete the fucking thing and have done with it. There's nothing worth saving.
by perfectly reasonably following on from a use of the word `domestic` created something truly, uniquely awful.
of the term "semantic abyss".
but I'm glad to see the new approach reaping results.
just awful all round.
Happy valentines darling
Chris Brown Assaults Burglar After Mistaking Him For His Girlfriend
I mean, assuming you both sleeping in the same room, or he knew she was over and in the house somewhere, it seems more than a bit strange. You don't go shooting the first silhouette you see. Not convincing at all.
it wants it's post back!
We are SO over the self defence angle now.
But it's good to hear that's been thrown out the window.
just trying to agree the sentence now.
Unless it's already happened upthread.
The police haven't announced if he's guilty yet
DiS has saved the Pretoria police some precious time there.
unlike the rest of you lazybones
just got a few sneaky this-es in for good measure.
Can someone check on brusma?
all over my keyboard
's too late for you.
Crap sub-Mock The Week 'gags' *
Ludicrous arguments escalating one particular word
People looking ludicrous for posting reactionary drivel and finding out the real details 5 minute later.
People posting links to back up their point which obviously nobody is going to read
Happy Valentine's Day!
*this is mandatory in every thread now
I mean, everyone has a really low opinion of tabloid shit like this anyway. But they somehow still get away with it and people think it's fine. Fuck me, I hate how something has horrible as that is definitely going to get blown over.
but can someone please just firebomb those cunts
until now. The Sun's lack of...everything is completely staggering
But it's so depressing how The Sun knew full well the backlash they'd get from doing something as disgusting as this and plowed ahead anyway, probably with a smirk on their face, knowing there'd be no *actual* repercussions.
blamed the shootings in Norway on Muslims without even checking?
Shot her through a locked bathroom door
and they found a blood stained cricket bat at the scene. Normally hate factless speculatoin, but when it's like this, you can't help but think that it's all tremendously odd.
Also, he'll lose any opf the concessions that he would have otherwise got re. sentencing by not submitting a guilty please from the outset.
if there's enough of it.
Why would a thief be in your bathroom?
Why would he/she enclose themselves in?
Why wouldn't you use that opportunity to get out?
Why wouldn't you check for your girlfriend on waking up?
Why would you start firing at random?
He lived in a gated compound as well, ffs. Whilst i know it's common for security to be behind robberies and that in South Africa, the holes in his story are ridiculous.
His defence should be going down the temporary insanity/ diminished responsibility/ whatever they call it in SA route, rather than this absolutley laughable bag of baws.
1. To steal the gold taps
2. If you're very quiet the owner might not look in there
3. He's got no legs!
4. It's a big bed, she's probably on the other side under the duvet
5. If you had a chance to shoot through a door wouldn't you do it?
And that blood stained cricket bat? We'll he ran over a badger yesterday and had to put it out of it's mirsery. All perfexctly normal.
If Oscar would like me to fly out and defend him we can discuss my fee.
definitely wouldn't bother saying snything first, like 'I got a gun biatch ima shoot you up
like 'the bathroom's out of order!' or 'You forgot to wash your hands!'
Surely the only reason there's not been a conviction by now is that he's got a really expensive lawyer
Even if he pleaded guilty tere would still need ot be due process and a hearing to allow him to put forward a please in mitigation. Ther's also always a backlog, even withuncontested prosecutoins, so you'd be looking at 6months + (I think- i actually know nothing about the backlog in SA, but I can't see the wheels of justice moving that fast in any developed jurisdiction.)
So it's really nothing to do with his lawyer. In fact, I think his lawyer is either stupid or mad, altohugh of course we will only know a small % of the facts that they will.
#OscarPistorius huge revelation. Botha first says steroids - Oldwage glances at him - changes to testosterone. BB
the way this is going it wouldn't surprise me if he was using prosthetic limbs to be honest
Slapped down quite hard. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2013/feb/20/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-day-two-live-coverage
because you can piss yourself in terror, or indeed as you die
but wouldn't that have been noted by the coroner, one way or the other?
given earlier in the thread it was apparently just some crazy rumour.
THis is not unusual in somebody who has been subjected to a violent aussault and sudden death.YET the defence are saying- SEEE she HAD gone to the loo for a waz, she wasn't actually just in there cowering and pleading for her life.
Jeez, I'm normally the absolute last person to pre-judge these matters and tend to thrown scorn on those who do, but I'm struggling with this one...
No prejudice or vested interest in this case from me.
then that would have been mentioned by the prosecution, though? Unless he had time to fully clean her so that it wasn't obvious, which I would imagine would make the scene of crime even more suspicious?
Also, why are they basically going through all the evidence from either side, when it's only a bail hearing?
What are they going to discuss when it comes to the actual trial?
The amount of "facts" and speculation in the press about this case is mindblowing - fair trial out of the window
it's presented before a Magistrate.
That is surprising to say the least. I'd have thought their legal system was based on the UK.
It was updated in 1994 when the new constitution was brought into affect.
A magistrate in the UK is often a layperson (or a layt, non-legal professional) who presides over fairly minor matters.
In SA the 'magistrate' is a highly qualified practitioner who deals with serious cases. (and in fact the system has been been praised by many in the law as being better than a jury system and looked to as a model for those looking at reform.)
I don't know if I feel that's good. It smacks a little of patronising the public, as if we're saying juries aren't really good enough. Why aren't they good enough?
The general public read tabloids and watch ITV.
I wouldn't trust most of them to walk my dog
made up of a very narrow band of society who already have a vast amount of control over everyone else. I'm not sure I trust one, old, privileged guy to make the best assumptions of a defendant.
when it comes to judging your general character, whether you're telling porkies, whether or not the things you say motivated you are actually likely, in reality, ot have motivated you etc.
I don't trust them over the old guy in the wig to make distinctions of a comnlex nature which require a great degree of legal, as opposed to practical, intuition.
i'M TALKING ACADEMICS. mANY OF WHOM THINK THAT JURIES ARE A WASTE OF TIME. i'M ALSMOT ENTIRELY SPILT ON THE MATTER.
See my comment above, though: it holds as much for academics as for people in law.
What is it about juries that they think is a waste of time?
Juries decide on points of fact, judges decide on points of law. SOunds dead simple. However, often in order to decide on a point of law, you need ot establish a pooint of fact, so the process will have to involve some kind of interwining of teh law into the factual decisoin-making, in order ot give it context for the jury. THis is where they bal;ls it up all the time (but usually realise they are doing so and have a bit of an eppy and acquit. So in terms of civil libs I have no issue- in the UK at least, they don't seem to get it wrong and convict all that much.)
whether the law actually needs to be so complicated so often that we would consider doing away with a jury.
I don't know because obviously I'm not up on the law, but it just makes me think of when you ask someone to improve the usability of software and their response is that it's going to be a lot of work/time, because fundamentally they don't respect the user. (Sorry, crap analogy but you hopefully get the sense I mean.)
but as far back as the Romans we've been trying to codify and simplify the law. The problem is, there are a thousand shades of grey, and banks of legal precedenet which seeks to draw out some kind of guidance on how to interpret legislation. The laww cnanot be straightforward until human natiure is straightforward, and it is not a science, nor can it really be reduced to a formula except in very extreme scenarios. It is all very complicated because, I'm afraid, it is very complicated.
You have 12 (or 15, depenidn gon where in the uK you are) people who are usually drawn form fairly different backgrounds and will ahve differing degrees of intellect, confidence, cooperative attitude etc. All it takes is one vociferous numpty to derail the entire jury room.
i havent been following the story very closely
you get the sense from the very beginning that justice isn't going to be done.
i'd have figured a high profile murder trial in the uk would take weeks possibly months to prepare and this seemed to be started before the funeral had even taken place
Just a bail hearing.
i expect i'll see some terrible jokes on twitter/facebook about him 'running away' once this hearing is over then
Bail from the bail hearing he is currently involved in, as distinct from the actual trial.
The actual trial will happen later on.
Might have looked silly otherwise.
It's not the trial.
a super quick trial instead. Seems strange.
Not the trial its actual self.
Which is distinct from the actual trial.
The grammar in the thread title is still making me uncomfortable
(please read in a comically strong SA accent)
It sounds like they've used up all the juicy bits
surely they don't need to go into this much detail to establish whether he should get bail or not.
From the BBC article it seems that his claim he was on his stumps when he shot doesn't match the downward angle of the bullets. You'd think his lawyer would've told him not to lie about something so easy to prove otherwise; anyone who's ever seen an episode of CSI knows they can tell a shooters height from bullet trajectory.
the guy playing Botha is brilliant.
I can't comment on Pistorius. He's in court and he's notorious. Libel laws are quite laborious. But my rhymes are fucking glorious
I'm punning without even realising it. I think I need a DiS break.
And him tearfully reading a statement outside the court like John Leslie did that time.
is being held on the set of West Side Story.
*he doesn't have a leg to stand on*.
Apparently the prosecution was pushing the case just to get the defence to show their cards before the main trial.
The judge will make a ruling in half an hour.
THE CUNT SHOT HIS MISSUS. NO-ONE KNOWS ANYTHING MORE.
but even then it'll be all Phil Spector.
And I don't mean a wall of sound.
Well played sir.
If you're that way inclined. All I can hear at the moment is a bunch of Afrikaans.
do you think the magistrate is getting a kick-back from advertisers on south african TV?
Can't believe I've been listening to this for 80 minutes.
I'm happy with that result
i wanted to post "No Bail! Denied"
No-legged man, with the bloody cricket bat, in the bathroom
realised he'd killed her/nearly killed her, put her in the bathroom and did the shooting through door thing to make it look like he thought it was an intruder. Dunno why they're even bothering with the trial when I've just solved it.
At some point it seemed that her skull was cracked and a bloody cricket bat was found, but now that doesn't seem to figure any more. What happened to that, was it just speculation?
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild |