Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

Rascasse

MadsL wrote: »

2. Was the concentration of urine in the toilet bowl such that she had peed and not flushed.

I think you've been watching too much CSI.

MadsL

Rascasse wrote: »

I think you've been watching too much CSI.

Well, a look in the bowl and a sample would be basic, no? Yellowish bowl, no flush. Is this rocket science?

It's a murder scene after all!

Rascasse

MadsL wrote: »

Well, a look in the bowl and a sample would be basic, no? Yellowish bowl, no flush. Is this rocket science?

It's a murder scene after all!

You can't be serious. Could you imagine the prosecution telling the judge that the toilet bowl was clear, thus the defendant is guilty? "He must have heard her flush, m'lud".

If you are serious: pee isn't always yellow and an intruder could hit the flush lever when climbing through the window.

Seachmall

Rascasse wrote: »

You can't be serious. Could you imagine the prosecution telling the judge that the toilet bowl was clear, thus the defendant is guilty? "He must have heard her flush, m'lud".

If you are serious: pee isn't always yellow and an intruder could hit the flush lever when climbing through the window.

Having irrelevant evidence is better than having missed relevant evidence.

Even if collected evidence seems obscure at first it could substantiate, or conflict with, his story.

namloc1980

Rascasse wrote: »

You can't be serious. Could you imagine the prosecution telling the judge that the toilet bowl was clear, thus the defendant is guilty? "He must have heard her flush, m'lud".

If you are serious: pee isn't always yellow and an intruder could hit the flush lever when climbing through the window.

The toilet is separate to the main bathroom behind it's own door away from the open bathroom window.

Da Shins Kelly

Also, there was no intruder to hit the flush lever.

namloc1980

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You're probably right but then most of us here were not brought up a country where you can't walk down the street wearing jewellery for fear of being mugged or stop your car at lights for too long because you might be shot for it. A co-worker of mine from Jo'berg even has friends who have bars across the bedroom door for safety.

If we had who knows how we'd react to hearing some-one move around the house late night, particularly if we'd just woken up in pitch darkness and were a bit disorientated.

And never underestimate the power of fear and stress on a person.

He had no fear about leaving his balcony open half the night. And he never checked on the safety of his loved one. And he wasn't disorientated to be able to go out to the balcony and bring in a fan!

robinph

paddy147 wrote: »

The bullets were fired through the door from a high position,so he had his legs on him when he fired the shots.

Hes fcuked at this stage.

Which the police office then changed his mind about when he was asked by the defence and said that actually he had nothing to say that the shots were from a high angle and they had nothing to contradict Pistouris version of shooting whilst he was on his knees.

MadsL

Rascasse wrote: »

You can't be serious. Could you imagine the prosecution telling the judge that the toilet bowl was clear, thus the defendant is guilty? "He must have heard her flush, m'lud".

If you are serious: pee isn't always yellow and an intruder could hit the flush lever when climbing through the window.

And you are criticising my detective work?

robinph

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21516664

Hilton Botha wrote:

Ms Steenkamp's wounds were on her right hand side, he said, suggesting that she was not sitting on the toilet.

From that map the gun was fired from about where the cricket bat is pictured towards the toilet. Do they have a different right and left in South Africa, because the way that room layout is suggests that if you are sat on the loo and get shot at the wounds will be on the right side of the body?

Seachmall

robinph wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21516664




From that map the gun was fired from about where the cricket bat is pictured towards the toilet. Do they have a different right and left in South Africa, because the way that room layout is suggests that if you are sat on the loo and get shot at the wounds will be on the right side of the body?

She might have been standing up and facing the toilet to put the seat down or flush the toilet.

Or she pees standing up?

wonderfullife

There is a very disconcerting sequence of events at play here.

Basing all of the following from court transcripts:

TIMELINE

* 2am-3am - Time window in which prosecution and defence agree Reeva was shot.

* 3:20am - Pistorius calls the manager of the Housing Complex he lives in and asks him to phone an ambulance. He then calls NetCare private paramedics himself.

* Police are called by a neighbour who hears gunshots. Time not stated.

* 4:15am - Detective Botha arrives at the scene. Reeva is already dead. Pistorius brother and lawyer already at scene.


Disconcerting elements:

Why did it take so long for Pistorius to phone for medical help? - Even taking the latter end of the agreed time window, he took 20 minutes to ring for help.

Why did Pistorius call the Housing Manager before the paramedics? - Surely on instinct alone, in any country, you ring 999 or 911 or whatever for an ambulance FIRST and foremost. Time is of the essence.

Why did he not use one of the phones in the bathroom to ring an ambulance? - phones were found in the bathroom yet none of which were used to call for an ambulance. Given he claims to have put on his prostetics, it's fair to assume he had no phone on his body and had to leave the bathroom to search for this "5th phone" which he placed the call. The phone conveniently not handed over to the prosecution.

Why did he call his brother and lawyer to get to the scene asap? - The girl was still alive yet he is making calls for people to get to the house to preserve his self interests. Both the lawyer and brother arrive at the house less than 45 minutes after paramedics were called.

Then it gets murkier:

Who leaked reports to the press of an "intruder"? - I have googled it and the first mention i can see in terms of the intruder storyline was 9:45am GMT so 11:45am SA time. Before any official police statement on the matter and less than 8 hours after the shooting.

A cynical interpretation of events is this: Pistorius shoots her, places calls to a brother, lawyer, father while she is still alive but dying. His lawyer arrives before police, walks him through what to say and do. Someone from his camp immediately puts out the intruder storyline to the press. Sews a seed of doubt in the public consciousness immediately. (Judges are members of the public).

For someone who is claiming to live in a state of fear and claims he was in a state of panic, he was remarkably calm and coherent in his actions after shooting her - in terms of his self-preservation anyway, not so calm in terms of trying to save her life.

Rascasse

The case gets curiouser and curiouser. Now the investing officer has been charged with attempted murder dating from 2009. Charges were withdrawn before but reinstated yesterday.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-cop-speaks-out-on-charges-20130221

robinph

Rascasse wrote: »

The case gets curiouser and curiouser. Now the investing officer has been charged with attempted murder dating from 2009. Charges were withdrawn before but reinstated yesterday.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-cop-speaks-out-on-charges-20130221

Sky News now saying that Botha has been dropped from the case.

JoeCole26

They need to get Hank Schrader on the case - only man for the job!


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4kU7yTDPSYAYD3VZpnkz4dsMp2Heei2uDOjDtcIXBq3vscguL8Q&t=1

opinion guy

This is turning into a farce.

Bacchus

WTF. I've been on the innocent (as in, it was accidental) till proven guilty side of the fence (unlike many here) regarding this case but if this was murder, I would hate to see Pistorius get away with it due the absolute shambles of a police force/prosecution. Didn't this Botha guy have a previous case of assault or something against Pistorius dropped? Should never have been let near such a high profile case. He's botched it from the start.

This is actually reminding me somewhat of the circus that was Michaela McAreavey case in Mauritius.

opinion guy

Agreed Bacchus - whatever did happen, the police tomfoolery here is a mockery to the poor girls memory

johnr1

This is beginning to remind me of the OJ case.

Side issue: I wonder if fishy fishy has a hangover today:D

gramar

Rascasse wrote: »

You can't be serious. Could you imagine the prosecution telling the judge that the toilet bowl was clear, thus the defendant is guilty? "He must have heard her flush, m'lud".

If you are serious: pee isn't always yellow and an intruder could hit the flush lever when climbing through the window.

There was no intruder! That's just a billshut excuse he came up with for murder.

seamus

Sounds like the higher-ups are worried that Botha is going to make the SA police force look even more incompetent and have come up with a convenient way to remove him from the case.

Gosub

I know it's not evidence but the whole muck slinging thing against the police tells me that he is guilty and his legal team are pulling out all the stops. The charges against the detective had been dropped and were reinstated hours after Pistorius' legal team were hired? His brother and lawyer were there to greet the police. Is that not odd to his supporters here?

Looking at the plan of his house, the balcony is on the opposite side of the bed to the bathroom. He had to pass the bed to get to the bathroom and didn't see it was empty? Pitch black me arse! He would have seen the empty bed.

When thinking of the police as fools, remember they are poorly paid and ill equipped. Pistorius' team are highly paid and with almost endless resources.

I say he's guilty of rage fed murder. But he'll probably get away with a much lesser charge. I feel for the girl's family. They have to see her murderer get away with it.

Before the 'ah but' crowd chime in here. I'm not presenting evidence, I'm just expressing my feelings on the case.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

There was no intruder!

Everyone is in agreement with that point.

gramar wrote: »

That's just a billshut excuse he came up with for murder.

So why did he murder her in the toilet cubicle then? Where is the evidence for pre-meditated murder?

Any evidence of anything at all would be a good start for the prosecution case.

gramar

If I was going to shoot someone I thought was in my bathroom I'd wake up the missus first
and tell her to cover her ears or something to that effect. I wouldn't just start blasting away on the suspicion that there was someone trying to break in and frighten the absolute **** out of her by waking her up with a few rounds of gunfire.

I remember being at home about 10 years ago. It was about 2 in the morning and only myself and the mother in the house. I heard someone fumbling with metal blinds through a small open window. I got up and told the mother what I'd heard and to sit tight for the simple reason that if I was about to confront someone I wanted her to know what was going on and not to wake up wondering what the hell was going on. I think that was a reasonable course of action and if OP didn't mean to kill her he should still go down for years because his actions were completely reckless.

Bacchus

Ah but...

Gosub wrote: »

I know it's not evidence but the whole muck slinging thing against the police tells me that he is guilty and his legal team are pulling out all the stops. The charges against the detective had been dropped and were reinstated hours after Pistorius' legal team were hired? His brother and lawyer were there to greet the police. Is that not odd to his supporters here?

Could easily be the SA authorities realising their case is going down the drain and they needed a handy excuse to get that incompetent fool off the case. Unless you have some hard evidence to support your claim? In fairness, if I was Pistorius, I'd want that eejit kept on the prosecution side. He was made a fool of yesterday

Gosub wrote: »

Looking at the plan of his house, the balcony is on the opposite side of the bed to the bathroom. He had to pass the bed to get to the bathroom and didn't see it was empty? Pitch black me arse! He would have seen the empty bed.

This is probably the most critical piece that needs to be explained. I doubt that will come out until the court case.

Gosub wrote: »

I say he's guilty of rage fed murder. But he'll probably get away with a much lesser charge. I feel for the girl's family. They have to see her murderer get away with it.

You say you're just expressing your feelings but you blatantly call him "her murderer" and say "he's guilty of rage fed murder". Pretty bold statements to make on a "feeling" without any hard evidence to support them (or at least to dispute Pistorius's version of events).

robinph

gramar wrote: »

If I was going to shoot someone I thought was in my bathroom I'd wake up the missus first
and tell her to cover her ears or something to that effect. I wouldn't just start blasting away on the suspicion that there was someone trying to break in and frighten the absolute **** out of her by waking her up with a few rounds of gunfire.

I remember being at home about 10 years ago. It was about 2 in the morning and only myself and the mother in the house. I heard someone fumbling with metal blinds through a small open window. I got up and told the mother what I'd heard and to sit tight for the simple reason that if I was about to confront someone I wanted her to know what was going on and not to wake up wondering what the hell was going on. I think that was a reasonable course of action and if OP didn't mean to kill her he should still go down for years because his actions were completely reckless.

Aarrggg, font tags. :eek:

Anyway, what you think you might do in his situation is kind of irrelevant. The police need to prove that it was pre-meditated. Just because other people might do things in a different order on hearing a noise in their house does nothing at all to prove that he had pre-planned to murder her.

It does count against him in as far as being an idiot for shooting through the door without knowing who it was in there, or where the girlfriend was. Does nothing to suggest that it was pre-meditated though.

Gosub

Bacchus wrote: »

You say you're just expressing your feelings but you blatantly call him "her murderer" and say "he's guilty of rage fed murder". Pretty bold statements to make on a "feeling" without any hard evidence to support them (or at least to dispute Pistorius's version of events).

I think it's more bold to to say it's Pistorius' version of events. At best it's a story cobbled up by his lawyer before the police (and probably ambulance) were called.

Just my humble opinion, of course.;)

Bacchus

gramar wrote: »

If I was going to shoot someone I thought was in my bathroom I'd wake up the missus first and tell her to cover her ears or something to that effect. I wouldn't just start blasting away on the suspicion that there was someone trying to break in and frighten the absolute **** out of her by waking her up with a few rounds of gunfire.

Speaking from experience are you? Noone knows how they would really react in that kind of situation. Basic instinct kicks in if you have the rush of fear come over you. Perhaps he was trying to move quietly so as not to alert the "intruder" that he was awake, hence not going to wake and startle his girlfriend. I'm not saying that this is what happened but I believe there is reasonable doubt there and so far no evidence has disputed his version. The trial should reveal more but until then it's all speculation.

opinion guy

Mad **** going on this morning - some random woman trying to address the judge and detective Botha seems to have gone missing:

https://twitter.com/BBCAndrewH

andrew harding ‏@BBCAndrewH

Short break for the hapless detective Botha to be found and brought to court.

Bacchus

Gosub wrote: »

I think it's more bold to to say it's Pistorius' version of events. At best it's a story cobbled up by his lawyer before the police (and probably ambulance) were called.

Just my humble opinion, of course.;)

No problem with opinions

I disagree though. So far Pistorius's version of event has held during two days of the bail hearing. It will go through much more rigorous scrutiny during the trial but so far not one thread of his story has been pulled apart. There is the grey areas of how did he not notice Reeva wasn't in the bed, but that's not enough to make bold statements that he is a murderer.

Gosub

Bacchus wrote: »

No problem with opinions

I disagree though. So far Pistorius's version of event has held during two days of the bail hearing. It will go through much more rigorous scrutiny during the trial but so far not one thread of his story has been pulled apart. There is the grey areas of how did he not notice Reeva wasn't in the bed, but that's not enough to make bold statements that he is a murderer.

It's also my opinion that OJ was guilty. So I'm a serial opinionater (it's a word!):D

opinion guy

Gosub wrote: »

It's also my opinion that OJ was guilty. So I'm a serial opinionater (it's a word!):D

Pffftt. Amateur

Bacchus

Gosub wrote: »

It's also my opinion that OJ was guilty. So I'm a serial opinionater (it's a word!):D

I was bit young to fully comprehend that case but I do remember him having about 12 lawyers.... and didn't he go on the run after the death... and wasn't there some dodgy goings on with the police or the DNA that basically got him off on a technicality. Some jurors said afterwards that they felt he was guilty but the prosecution fcuked up their case. Looks like the SA prosecution are already fcuking up here but that doesn't mean Pistorius is guilty of murder.

gramar

Bacchus wrote: »

Speaking from experience are you? Noone knows how they would really react in that kind of situation. Basic instinct kicks in if you have the rush of fear come over you. Perhaps he was trying to move quietly so as not to alert the "intruder" that he was awake, hence not going to wake and startle his girlfriend. I'm not saying that this is what happened but I believe there is reasonable doubt there and so far no evidence has disputed his version. The trial should reveal more but until then it's all speculation.

As I said in the earlier post I have heard someone trying to break in but I'm also aware that where I live and South Africa are not exactly comparable. Still though I wouldn't have fired off a gun through the closed sitting room door not knowing who was in there just because I heard a couple of noises.

karma_

robinph wrote: »

Everyone is in agreement with that point.


So why did he murder her in the toilet cubicle then? Where is the evidence for pre-meditated murder?

Any evidence of anything at all would be a good start for the prosecution case.

She probably locked herself in there in a futile attempt to protect herself.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

As I said in the earlier post I have heard someone trying to break in but I'm also aware that where I live and South Africa are not exactly comparable. Still though I wouldn't have fired off a gun through the closed sitting room door not knowing who was in there just because I heard a couple of noises.

So does the fact that Oscar Pistouris did fire at the door mean that it was pre-meditated murder?

I'd say that just makes him incredibly stupid which is not the same thing.

TheNap

I think maybe the prosecution have more than they are letting on . Probably keeping it for the trial and dont want to show their full hand . If the poor woman was shot in the hip in the bedroom it would be pretty easy to prove i would say . And then running to the bathroom and locking the door to hide and the defendent still in a rage shoots through the door a couple of times killing her would be very likely . We shall wait and see .

Bacchus

gramar wrote: »

As I said in the earlier post I have heard someone trying to break in but I'm also aware that where I live and South Africa are not exactly comparable. Still though I wouldn't have fired off a gun through the closed sitting room door not knowing who was in there just because I heard a couple of noises.

This.

Btw, I'm not saying that you are wrong. It's still a massive question as to why he reacted in the way that he did but there's a lot of doubt there and I don't think we can judge him because we say would have acted differently.

I would have always thought if I was mugged on the streets, I'd just give them what they wanted.... then it happened... and I fought em off. Total rush of blood to the head. Logic goes out the window. Had they had a knife and stabbed me, people would be saying "I would have just given them whatever they wanted". Go figure...

robinph

karma_ wrote: »

She probably locked herself in there in a futile attempt to protect herself.

Or she went for a piss, then heard him get up and decided she'd rather not have him wandering in on her.

Still nothing to suggest the charge of murder has been presented in the bail hearing. Or even a likely version of the murder scenario has been invented from the random mutterings of people on the internet.

karma_

robinph wrote: »

Or she went for a piss, then heard him get up and decided she'd rather not have him wandering in on her.

Still nothing to suggest the charge of murder has been presented in the bail hearing. Or even a likely version of the murder scenario has been invented from the random mutterings of people on the internet.

I really don't understand the amount of posters who line up to fight this scumbags corner.

I don't know her and I have barely heard of him and I can never say for certain this murder was pre-meditated, what I can logically interpret from the stories I have read so far suggest that his story reeks, it's fishy as fúck. And the most obvious explanation to me is he knowingly murdered her, this was reinforced this morning when I read the story about the investigating cop. Just another episode of a rich person attempting to pervert the course of justice.

gramar

robinph wrote: »

So does the fact that Oscar Pistouris did fire at the door mean that it was pre-meditated murder?

I'd say that just makes him incredibly stupid which is not the same thing.

It does make him incredibly stupid if that's what happens but to me it smacks of a cover story to try and explain what really happened. There are neighbours who saw light and heard arguing so there is serious doubt as to whether the room was in darkness but this will all come to light (excuse the pun) when it goes to trial and then we'll see if the neighbours can provide credible evidence or not.

seamus

karma_ wrote: »

I really don't understand the amount of posters who line up to fight this scumbags corner.

You seem very certain that he is guilty and clearly that's affecting your ability to look at the case impassionately and objectively.

I haven't actually seen anyone "fight his corner", just a lot of objective analysis about what-ifs and could-have.

If you presume that he's a murderer, then you will assume that evidence against this is fundamentally weak. It's called "Confirmation Bias", look it up.

On the other hand, if you make no presumptions then you will give all evidence equal weight and you're more capable of discerning weak evidence from strong evidence.

For example, there are still so people banging on about the "witness". This witness was too far away to see or hear anything and say they knew what it was. It's weak evidence. But if you've already assumed he's guilty, you'll think it's strong evidence.

davet82

no surprises the lead investigator got the boot after yesterdays performance...

and the fact he has 7 charges of attempted murder himself to answer to...

what a crazy country

opinion guy

karma_ wrote: »

I really don't understand the amount of posters who line up to fight this scumbags corner.

Nobody is fighting his corner we are aguring the evidence. The cop's version just doesn't make sense.

this was reinforced this morning when I read the story about the investigating cop. Just another episode of a rich person attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Explain this. Considering that neither the defence nor the prosecution were made aware of the cops' charges and the decision to reinstate charges against the cop was taken on 4th February. Also explain why the cop himself states in court that he could not provide any evidence to contradict OP's version of events.

seamus

If the defence really wanted to mess with the course of justice, they would fight tooth and nail to keep Botha at the helm of the investigation. You'd be guaranteed a mistrial and an acquittal.

opinion guy

davet82 wrote: »

no surprises the lead investigator got the boot after yesterdays performance...

and the fact he has 7 charges of attempted murder himself to answer to...

what a crazy country

Apparently himself and two colleagues were drunk whilst chasing a suspect and fired at a taxi with 7 people on board*:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282087/Oscar-Pistorius-detective-Hilton-Botha-facing-SEVEN-attempted-murder-charges-drunken-shooting.html


* Insert Daily Mail disclaimer here

robinph

karma_ wrote: »

I really don't understand the amount of posters who line up to fight this scumbags corner.

I don't know her and I have barely heard of him and I can never say for certain this murder was pre-meditated, what I can logically interpret from the stories I have read so far suggest that his story reeks, it's fishy as fúck. And the most obvious explanation to me is he knowingly murdered her, this was reinforced this morning when I read the story about the investigating cop. Just another episode of a rich person attempting to pervert the course of justice.

So far we have a slightly odd story from Pistouris, but nothing that has been proven incorrect by any evidence and everything he says is perfectly plausible.
We also have a claim of pre-meditated murder from the prosecution and absolutely nothing at all to back that claim up.

I thought it was all over for the defence when Botha first appeared on the stand yesterday and said that the shots were fired from a standing position 1.5m away from the door. He then changed his mind and said that the shots could have been fired from the crouched position that Oscar Pistouris would be in without his legs. The prosecution have nothing to refute anything that Pistouris has says.

I'm not fighting his corner, I'm wanting to see some evidence of the prosecution claims before convicting him.

SmokeyEyes

Idioteque wrote: »

I just can't understand how anyone, upon hearing what they thought was an intruder, would not:

(A) Turn to the person in bed beside them to see if they were woken by the noise also

and/or

(B) Wake the person beside you to let them know there is an intruder

That to me is the most basic and strange thing about this...He HAD to know she wasn't in bed with him (pitch black or not)

This is exactly what my boyfriend and I said to eachother, that part sounds extremely strange...

Bacchus

seamus wrote: »

If the defence really wanted to mess with the course of justice, they would fight tooth and nail to keep Botha at the helm of the investigation. You'd be guaranteed a mistrial and an acquittal.

I find it amazing that anyone could think Botha getting kicked off the case could be Pistorius's doing! Botha is a total liability for the prosecution. The prosecution is stronger without him. Anyone thinking otherwise is just looking for excuses to nail Pistorius.

robinph

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

This is exactly what my boyfriend and I said to eachother, that part sounds extremely strange...

He was already out of bed when he heard the noises and suspected there to be intruders.