Evidentiary argument?

[cee-dee]

We've all seen the recent cases where celebrities have been in Court charged with a variety of offences going back many years and one of the things said by the accusers and Prosecution is that "so many people couldn't have got it wrong"?

Now we see in the Pistorius trial in SA completely the opposite.:-

The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial has questioned the reliability of several witnesses in court, as she delivers her verdict on the athlete.

Judge Thokozile Masipa said humans were fallible, and may not have heard gunshots or screaming as they thought.

OK, it's different countries and different circumstances and whatever the truth of the matter, it just goes to show that the most unreliable evidence is that of "eye" witnesses and what they say.

[tommy.irene]

I think he did it and should do time ..but im not the Judge.. 

[lambsy_uk]

We know he did it!

[tommy.irene]

Judge:................................. State can't prove Pistorius guilty of premeditated murder South African judge Thokozile Masipa said the state could not prove beyond doubt that Oscar Pistorius is guilty of premeditated murder. The athlete shot dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year.

[cee-dee]

I don't think there's any need for all this "playing to the audience". The trial dragged on for ages so all that's needed is a straightforward verdict and sentence with the reasoning all laid out in detail on paper.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

We've all seen the recent cases where celebrities have been in Court charged with a variety of offences going back many years and one of the things said by the accusers and Prosecution is that "so many people couldn't have got it wrong"?

Now we see in the Pistorius trial in SA completely the opposite.:-

The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial has questioned the reliability of several witnesses in court, as she delivers her verdict on the athlete.

Judge Thokozile Masipa said humans were fallible, and may not have heard gunshots or screaming as they thought.

OK, it's different countries and different circumstances and whatever the truth of the matter, it just goes to show that the most unreliable evidence is that of "eye" witnesses and what they say.

---

Most of the evidence at recent trials has not come from "eye witnesses" but from "alleged  victims" - totally different.

[tommy.irene]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I don't think there's any need for all this "playing to the audience". The trial dragged on for ages so all that's needed is a straightforward verdict and sentence with the reasoning all laid out in detail on paper.

---

I know ..why did Sky News give it so much cover.. it got boring listing to the same things been said again and again..

[cee-dee]

I wondered how long that would take to get mentioned!

However, it still comes down to what people say, something which is not backed up by hard evidence.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I wondered how long that would take to get mentioned!

However, it still comes down to what people say, something which is not backed up by hard evidence.

---

In the Rolf Harris trial verbal evidence was supported by hard evidence - don't know about others as I haven't followed them that closely.

[cee-dee]

The judge has adjourned until tomorrow for some more over dramatised play-acting.

[sir_arthur_strebe-grebling]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

the most unreliable evidence is that of "eye" witnesses

---

When my car was hit head-on by a boy-racer who came round a bend out of control on my side of the road, the Police closed the road, took all sorts of measurements and photographs of skid-marks, impact position,etc, worked out the speed before the impact, and so on ... but then said that they couldn't prosecute him because there were no eye witnesses!

So, what was the point in taking all those measurements and photographs?

[cee-dee]

The answer to that is "Because it suited them".

[evoman3957]

Perhaps they thought that because they can go through Red lights, drive on the wrong side of the Road and through Pedestrian precincts...........everybody can. Or perhaps they were French..........on secondment..........to cover shortages.

[saasher2012]

You'd need a brandy & a lie down, I believe there is 100pages they've got to read out, talk about verbal squitters !.

[joe_bloggs*]

Were you wearing your Tory rosette by any chance? Might have affected the outcome you know

[evoman3957]

Blimey Joe, it really is a "Tribal" thing with you; as opposed to just party political affiliations. I'm not even a paid up member of any political party and that's just the first step in total immersion..........you take it to a whole new level.

[joe_bloggs*]

Thanks Evo,you've obviously noticed the affiliations I've been displaying On these boards

[evoman3957]

No accounting for taste Joe........one Man's meat is another Man's poison...........whatever makes you happy.

[saasher2012]

So ! he has been acquitted of murder but could face a manslaughter charge after all that summing up.
It's a strange one that's for sure.

[tommy.irene]

It took 3 hours of viewing to hear Guilty of manslaughter..what a slow case and sky tv still shows it as if its the only news in the world...