Wow what a striking turn around in public perception after the airing of the video. Prior to visuals confirming what Oscar had testified to, it would be generous to say 20% believed him to be innocent. Now it's almost half. And we know if the poll was able to be skewed with Oscar haters, it was.
For the life of me, I don't understand the visceral hatred for Pistorius. It started before the trial even began and before one piece of evidence was presented. Is it that hard for freewheelers to understand that you have to start with the presumption of innocence and even view all evidence in that light? Once all impartially evaluated reasons of beyond doubt that a plausible explanation--other than what is offered by the defense--is systematically eliminated,
then, you conclude with rationale of guilt. Everybody has it ass backwards.
To watch the contortions the dim-a-phobes and Nelnuts will go through to make even the slightest morsel of evidence that doesn't conform to their hell-bent vendetta against Oscar, is almost the stuff for a scientific study. One would think it was somebody from their family he shot.
Did it ever occur to these Oscar version of al Quida that if Pistorius testified to anything that was knowingly false and Roux knew it, that he would be
suborning perjury by allowing him to state it on the stand? Did they ever stop to think that Roux commissioned this video re-enactment and that he would know everything that was determined from it? For him to knowingly allow Pistorius to testify that he was on his prosthesis when he dragged Reeva from the toilet when he knew he was on his stumps, he could lose his law license. Do they really think Roux would put his career on the line for Oscar and allow him to lie on the stand?
Studies show that
EYEWITNESSES are wrong over 30% of the time. Do we even have EYE witnesses here? We have EAR witness that are hearing sounds that two prominent adversarial lawyers practicing in South Africa testing to see what could be heard over those distances, found weren't even audible. Let alone indemnifying what any of them could discern or what they could actually be hearing. They had to move to a distance of only 50 meters away before they could hear anything. Even Mrs Van Der Merwe was 80 meters away and she was the
closest one that the State has to rely on. It's a sham, if not a travesty to put any credence in this pathetically weak hope of the prosecution. Yet, this all the State has.
God I hope that the 50% who still think he shot Reeva knowing that he was aiming at her behind that door, p-l-ease get a doctor's alibi to excuse you from jury duty if you ever get a summons. You don't understand evidence and our prisons are full enough already let alone sending not guilty defendants who are getting railroaded like this one, to cram in one more.
Login
FAQ
Do not go gentle into that good night.
