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

davet82

robinph wrote: »

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.

why would pistouris lie about shooting with no legs on, i'm sure he knew he'd be caught out with the bullets trajectory so it looks worst again for the prosecution unless something turns up on them phones or there is something being held back by the prosecution i reckon he is gonna get of pretty lightly by the sounds of things so far.

opinion guy

karma_ wrote: »

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

I really don't understand the amount of posters who don't seem to think any kind of evidence or trial are necessary at all before casting judgement.

Both our education system, and American cop shows, are failing us badly it seems:(

opinion guy

andrew harding ‏@BBCAndrewH #0scarPistorius detective Botha says he doesn't have "connections" to get Reeva's phone records by now. Hints of creaking SA police system.

:rolleyes:

davet82

i still think he is guilty but i'm predicting Oscar talking on Oprah's couch next year...

seriously though if it turns out his story is to be believed and he thought he was shooting an intruder (which is legal in SA) I wonder what type of convicion or sentence, if any, would be imposed?

karma_

robinph wrote: »

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.

Slightly odd?

This guy picked up a gun and killed his partner. That's his own admission. I'm just not swayed by his bullshít as others appear to be.

Seachmall

karma_ wrote: »

Slightly odd?

This guy picked up a gun and killed his partner. That's his own admission. I'm just not swayed by his bullshít as others appear to be.

The way the criminal justice system works:

1. He tells his side of his story which explains the events of that night.
   
2. We give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his story to be true.
   
3. We then accumulate and interpret evidence to find anything that conflicts with his story.
   
4. If there's substantial evidence that conflicts with his story we decide his story to be impossible and decide he's guilty.
   
5. If not, we assume he's not guilty.

Can you point out the evidence that conflicts with his story and demonstrates he's lying beyond a reasonable doubt?



Nobody is being swayed by his bullshit, we're waiting for the prosecution to sway us with theirs.

opinion guy

karma_ wrote: »

Slightly odd?

This guy picked up a gun and killed his partner. That's his own admission. I'm just not swayed by his bullshít as others appear to be.

How do you know it was bull**** ? Do you have some evidence the rest of us don't ? Were you a witness ? You should present yourself to the prosecution if so

robinph

karma_ wrote: »

Slightly odd?

This guy picked up a gun and killed his partner. That's his own admission. I'm just not swayed by his bullshít as others appear to be.

No, he picked up a gun and shot a door that he believed an intruder to be behind.

There is nothing to suggest that he thought Reeva Steenkamp was behind that door at the time.

seamus

If he doesn't walk free on bail this evening, I'll eat my shoes. Ignoring the prosecution's farcical investigation, Pistorious's lawyer is clearly in another class compared to the prosecution. He'd tear them apart even if they had good evidence.

Gosub

robinph wrote: »

No, he picked up a gun and shot a door that he believed an intruder to be behind.

There is nothing to suggest that he thought Reeva Steenkamp was behind that door at the time.

No, he picked up a gun and killed his girlfriend. These are the only facts that are clear. Neither you nor I can tell what was on his mind when he pulled the trigger.

robinph

Nothing to suggest he is a flight risk,
Nothing to suggest he is a risk of re-offending whilst on bail.
Nothing to suggest the charge of pre-meditated murder is valid.

Reduce the charge to the manslaughter equivalent, post high bail, remove passports (he has two), remove guns and licenses, tell him to appear at police station every X days. Then let him leave custody.

Then we can wait for the actual trial sometime next year probably.

karma_

robinph wrote: »

No, he picked up a gun and shot a door that he believed an intruder to be behind.

There is nothing to suggest that he thought Reeva Steenkamp was behind that door at the time.

Nothing to suggest that?

Locked door?

Heated arguments heard by a witness?

Passing the bed from the balcony and apparently not noticing she was absent from the bed even though he was alerted a burglar was in his bathroom? - This one alone is the most suspicious, We have to accept he was an idiot to not notice something like that.

All arguments presented here by yourself and cohorts are extremely tenuous at the very best.

robinph

Gosub wrote: »

No, he picked up a gun and killed his girlfriend. These are the only facts that are clear. Neither you nor I can tell what was on his mind when he pulled the trigger.

Nope, he shot at a door. Even the useless prosecution are not disputing that.

His girlfriend died as a result of being behind the door, but it was the door that he shot at.

Seachmall

karma_ wrote: »

Locked door?

Habit.

Heated arguments heard by a witness?

Reliability of which have been thrown into doubt.

All arguments presented here by yourself and cohorts are extremely tenuous at the very best.

You seem to be forgetting that it's not us who have the burden of proof.


It's up to the guilty party to demonstrate his story to be impossible. Not to speculate that it is, but to show it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gosub

robinph wrote: »

Nope, he shot at a door. Even the useless prosecution are not disputing that.

His girlfriend died as a result of being behind the door, but it was the door that he shot at.

Doesn't change the fact that he killed her.

robinph

karma_ wrote: »

Nothing to suggest that?

Locked door?

Heated arguments heard by a witness?

Passing the bed from the balcony and apparently not noticing she was absent from the bed even though he was alerted a burglar was in his bathroom? - This one alone is the most suspicious, We have to accept he was an idiot to not notice something like that.

All arguments presented here by yourself and cohorts are extremely tenuous at the very best.

There is no evidence to dispute Pistouris statement about the chain of events. The cheif investigating officer said so himself in the hearing yesterday:
https://twitter.com/barrybateman/status/304546136050524160

Roux: the IO testified that Oscar's version is consistent with the known evidence, and he couldn't refute his version. BB

robinph

Gosub wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that he killed her.

True, but that is not what this bail hearing is about.

karma_

robinph wrote: »

Nope, he shot at a door. Even the useless prosecution are not disputing that.

His girlfriend died as a result of being behind the door, but it was the door that he shot at.

And I and others are suggesting he knew that she was behind that door and it was his intent to kill her.

By the way, this is the most pedantic response I've seen on boards this week.

opinion guy

Gosub wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that he killed her.

Nobody is disputing that fact - not even Pistorius himself.

Here we go again..... - Gosub do you understand the difference between murder, manslaughter and accidental death ?

seenitall

robinph wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest that he thought Reeva Steenkamp was behind that door at the time.

I don't believe a word of his story, and I never will. Whoever you are, however paranoid you are, you don't just start shooting at a closed door, without exchanging a word with your girlfriend, who is supposed to be beside you. Unless you know very well where she is and why you are shooting.

I believe that in a fit of rage, he murdered a defenceless woman who was scared of him and locked herself in the bathroom, and I predict that by the end of the whole (pre)judicial process, whatever the outcome is, I won't have any more reason to change my mind on this than I have now.

Another murderer will likely walk free.

Gosub

opinion guy wrote: »

Nobody is disputing that fact - not even Pistorius himself.

Here we go again..... - Gosub do you understand the difference between murder, manslaughter and accidental death ?

Yes I do. Thanks for your condescension. I was merely replying to Robin, who suggested he murdered a door.

robinph

karma_ wrote: »

And I and others are suggesting he knew that she was behind that door and it was his intent to kill her.

By the way, this is the most pedantic response I've seen on boards this week.

They can certainly charge him with intending to kill who he believed was behind the door. They have nothing to suggest that he intended to kill his girlfriend which is what the pre-meditated murder charge is about.

karma_

seenitall wrote: »

I don't believe a word of his story, and I never will. Whoever you are, however paranoid you are, you don't just start shooting at a closed door, without exchanging a word with your girlfriend, who is supposed to be beside you. Unless you know very well where she is and why you are shooting.

I believe that in a fit of rage, he murdered a defenceless woman who was scared of him and locked herself in the bathroom, and I predict that by the end of the whole (pre)judicial process, whatever the outcome is, I won't have any more reason to change my mind on this than I have now.

Another murderer will likely walk free.

This.

The simplest solutions is often the most elegant.

If he walks free, and like yourself I have my suspicions he might it, will be another indictment into a flawed justice system where those who can afford the best lawyers can skirt justice.

karma_

robinph wrote: »

They can certainly charge him with intending to kill who he believed was behind the door. They have nothing to suggest that he intended to kill his girlfriend which is what the pre-meditated murder charge is about.

You keep saying there is nothing to suggest he knew she was behind the door when this just ignores the fact that he apparently walked past an empty bed?

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

Nope, he shot at a door. Even the useless prosecution are not disputing that.

His girlfriend died as a result of being behind the door, but it was the door that he shot at.

:D now that is just grasping at straws.

completely ridiculous statement

opinion guy

Gosub wrote: »

Yes I do. Thanks for your condescention. I was merely replying to Robin, who suggested he murdered a door.

What condescension ???
You're statements continue to imply that you don't understand the differences between those terms - mine was a genuine question.robinph was not suggesting he murdered a door, but suggesting it was not premeditated murder. THAT is the question at hand. Not whether he killed her or not.

seamus

karma_ wrote: »

Locked door?

If I get up in the middle of the night to pee, I often lock the door. Even though the toilet is on another floor and the only other adult in the house is asleep. It's just habit.

Heated arguments heard by a witness?

A witness who was at best 300m away.
That's about the length of Grafton St. Try it one day - have a mate stand down the opposite end of Grafton St and start screaming and shouting and tell us how much you can hear.

All arguments presented here by yourself and cohorts are extremely tenuous at the very best.

All of the evidence presented by the prosecution is tenuous and all of the supposition by people who are convinced he murdered her, is very flimsy.

Initially his story seemed ridiculous given the "evidence" that the prosecution appeared to have, but since that evidence has been shown up to be very weak or non-existent, there has been nothing to disprove Pistorious's story, no matter how unlikely it sounds.

Seachmall

seenitall wrote: »

I don't believe a word of his story

But what can you prove?


I think the issue between the two sides here is those who say he's guilty are expressing their personal opinion on the matter, those who disagree are expressing what they believe the evidence to suggest in accordance with the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy.

gramar

robinph wrote: »

Nope, he shot at a door. Even the useless prosecution are not disputing that.

His girlfriend died as a result of being behind the door, but it was the door that he shot at.

'The door that he shot at?' ha - that's like saying it was the bullet that did it not the person whp pulled the trigger. He intentionally shot at the person on the other side of the door. What we don't know is if he knew it was his girlfriend or not.

opinion guy

seamus wrote: »

A witness who was at best 300m away.

Beggars belief they didn't measure this distance

seamus

gramar wrote: »

'The door that he shot at?' ha - that's like saying it was the bullet that did it not the person whp pulled the trigger. He intentionally shot at the person on the other side of the door. What we don't know is if he knew it was his girlfriend or not.

Depends on how South African law is framed.

In Ireland, if you intend on killing someone but manage to kill someone else, it's still murder. So in this case, OP would have to prove that he shot through the door but did not intend to kill the person behind it. That would be exceptionally hard to prove.

However, the same definition of murder may not apply in south africa and it's only murder if you kill the person you intended to kill.

opinion guy

gramar wrote: »

'The door that he shot at?' ha - that's like saying it was the bullet that did it not the person whp pulled the trigger. He intentionally shot at the person on the other side of the door. What we don't know is if he knew it was his girlfriend or not.

Agreed.

So if he didn't know it was her - it wasn't premeditated murder. Don't you agree ?

Although it may still have been murder or manslaughter, that is not being discussed in the court at the moment as the prosecution are insisting on premeditated murder.

Seachmall

karma_ wrote: »

You keep saying there is nothing to suggest he knew she was behind the door when this just ignores the fact that he apparently walked past an empty bed?

It was addressed that he either looked at the bed and believed he saw her outline (a common psychological effect known as apophenia, which we've all experienced) or didn't look at her in bed and just assumed she was asleep (a common psychological effect known as doing stupid things in stressful situations).


You believe he knew she was in the bathroom, but I don't think he should be found guilty on what you believe to be true. Only on what can be shown to be true.

Pumpkinseeds

I find it suspicious that the lead detective on the case, who had charges which were provisionally withdrawn for a different case, had those charges reinstated yesterday. Apparently there was a possibility that because of those existing charges his evidence might have been discounted in the Pistorious case. Although at this stage they're saying that his evidence won't be discounted.

To me this smacks of strings being pulled by a higher power. I suspect Pistorious is going to get away with killing her.

opinion guy

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I find it suspicious that the lead detective on the case, who had charges which were provisionally withdrawn for a different case, had those charges reinstated yesterday. Apparently there was a possibility that because of those existing charges his evidence might have been discounted in the Pistorious case. Although at this stage they're saying that his evidence won't be discounted.

To me this smacks of strings being pulled by a higher power. I suspect Pistorious is going to get away with killing her.

They were reinstated on Feb 4th - before Steenkamp was killed

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/us-safrica-pistorius-investigator-idUSBRE91K05H20130221

Pudders

From what I have heard and read, I am in the camp which believes he is more likely guily than innocent. It is clear that he can afford a very strong defence team which so far have done a brilliant job sowing doubts in people's minds, however, I think there are questions which do raise serious questions over his innocene.

Why did he phone his brother, father and lawyer before ambulance / emergency services? I've been a witness to a shooting. About 10 feet away. My first reaction was to run to safety, followed by a call to the emergency services immediately afterwards.
Why the time delay in phoning an ambulance?
Where is the msyterious 5th phone - why not hand it over to the police if he is innocent?
Why if he shouted at Reeva, didn't she respond?
Why shoot 4 shots not knowing what you are shooting at?
What is the truth re the lights being on?
What is the truth re witnesses hearing shouting? I lived in a relative quiet rural area. It is easy to hear shouting in the middle of the night from a fair distance so even the 600m doesn't mean it isn't reliable.

karma_

seamus wrote: »

If I get up in the middle of the night to pee, I often lock the door. Even though the toilet is on another floor and the only other adult in the house is asleep. It's just habit.

That's just anecdotal, I don't even close the door when I get up to urinate. Hopefully the prosecution will be able to get testimony that she was not in the habit of doing this so this rat can be locked up for a nice long time.

seamus

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I find it suspicious that the lead detective on the case, who had charges which were provisionally withdrawn for a different case, had those charges reinstated yesterday.
...
To me this smacks of strings being pulled by a higher power. I suspect Pistorious is going to get away with killing her.

This has been answered about fifty times at this stage. The lead detective yesterday gave a real boost to the defence. If any "higher powers" pulled strings, it was on the prosecution side, who want him removed to avoid any further embarrassment and jeopardising of the case.

That's just anecdotal, I don't even close the door when I get up to urinate.

Exactly

"Why did she lock the door, I don't", is just anecdotal. There's no good reason to be suspicious of the door being locked, because it's something that people commonly do.

The "hang him and shoot him" brigade's case at this stage seems to be based on the idea that, "He didn't do things the way I would have done them, therefore he's lying".

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

But what can you prove?


I think the issue between the two sides here is those who say he's guilty are expressing their personal opinion on the matter, those who disagree are expressing what they believe the evidence to suggest in accordance with the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy.

I can't prove a thing, as I wasn't there, so it's a good thing I don't have to.

As you say, I can have an opinion, and that is it, including the one about him getting away scot-free for his crime. So I'm not too worried about this particular guy not being considered 'innocent until proven guilty'. What I'm reading at the moment is indicative of him having every chance of being considered innocent, full stop.

Gosub

opinion guy wrote: »

What condescension ???
You're statements continue to imply that you don't understand the differences between those terms - mine was a genuine question.robinph was not suggesting he murdered a door, but suggesting it was not premeditated murder. THAT is the question at hand. Not whether he killed her or not.

Your post read like you were typing from a height.... maybe a horse.:p

While there is often a blur between manslaughter and murder, accidental death is usually pretty clear cut. Did he fall off the scaffolding? Yes. Was he alone? Yes. Therefore, accidental death.

Was her death an accident? Did he intend to kill someone? (bear in mind the size of the toilet behind the door) Did he intend to kill her?

None of us know these answers for sure. However I choose to believe he killed her in a rage, based on the sketchy evidence we have. You can choose to believe what you want, that's your right.

Even after a full trial we may never hear the truth. Many, many guilty men and women are walking free today, just because they concocted a good story that couldn't reliably be debunked.

eyescreamcone

If the socks don't fit, you must acquit!!!

opinion guy

Pudders wrote: »

Why did he phone his brother, father and lawyer before ambulance / emergency services? I've been a witness to a shooting. About 10 feet away. My first reaction was to run to safety, followed by a call to the emergency services immediately afterwards.
Why the time delay in phoning an ambulance?
Where is the msyterious 5th phone - why not hand it over to the police if he is innocent?
Why if he shouted at Reeva, didn't she respond?
Why shoot 4 shots not knowing what you are shooting at?
What is the truth re the lights being on?
What is the truth re witnesses hearing shouting? I lived in a relative quiet rural area. It is easy to hear shouting in the middle of the night from a fair distance so even the 600m doesn't mean it isn't reliable.

As far as I know none of this has been backed up with evidence in the court. It should be very easy to prove the phone stuff with records - why was that not presented in court ?

karma_ wrote: »

That's just anecdotal, I don't even close the door when I get up to urinate. Hopefully the prosecution will be able to get testimony that she was not in the habit of doing this so this rat can be locked up for a nice long time.

Just anecdotal ??? What other way of talking about one person locking the bathroom at night or not is there ?!?!
How would they get testimony about such a thing ?

You are just being silly now

Bacchus

karma_ wrote: »

Nothing to suggest that?

Locked door?

Heated arguments heard by a witness?

Passing the bed from the balcony and apparently not noticing she was absent from the bed even though he was alerted a burglar was in his bathroom? - This one alone is the most suspicious, We have to accept he was an idiot to not notice something like that.

All arguments presented here by yourself and cohorts are extremely tenuous at the very best.

FFS, going round in circles at this stage. The locked door is not evidence that he is lying. She may have locked the door when she went to the toilet. That "witness" was 600m away and could not have heard an argument coming from their apartment.

The only valid argument the prosecution have is how he didn't notice she was not in the bed but it is debatable and not a clear cut sign that he knew she was in the bathroom.

gramar

opinion guy wrote: »

Agreed.

So if he didn't know it was her - it wasn't premeditated murder. Don't you agree ?

Although it may still have been murder or manslaughter, that is not being discussed in the court at the moment as the prosecution are insisting on premeditated murder.

Of course it was premeditated - he knew someone was inside and he took the decision to fire four shots. He knew someone was in there from the moment he heard the noise from the balcony, went for the gun and then approached the bathrooom when he fired 4 shots without warning the person inside.

The more I think about this the more his actions are just not plausible in relation to his story.

Why didn't he fire one shot and as a kind of warning and then he would have heard her scream and wouldn't have shot anymore(assuming it wasn't a fatal shot). But no - he fired four shots into the door. To me that means he wanted to kill whoever was in there.

seamus

Pudders wrote: »

Why did he phone his brother, father and lawyer before ambulance / emergency services? I've been a witness to a shooting. About 10 feet away. My first reaction was to run to safety, followed by a call to the emergency services immediately afterwards.

Actually we don't know what the order was. It appears that he phoned the property manager first and asked him to call an ambulance. Why? Possibly because the normal emergency services at 999 or 112 are considered to be unreliable (the police took more than an hour to turn up to a shooting) so perhaps wealthy citizens use private ambulances services, and OP didn't have a number.

I'm wouldn't be surprised that he would call his family. Not in the slightest. As someone with a high public profile he no doubt has a close relationship with his lawyers, so his father rang the lawyer. The lawyer was there before the police not because he was called first, but because the police took more than an hour to appear.

It was agreed that she was shot sometime between 2am and 3am. The ambulance service called at 3:20. And the police arrived at 4:20.

Why the time delay in phoning an ambulance?
Where is the msyterious 5th phone - why not hand it over to the police if he is innocent?

Good questions. Why didn't the police take the 5th phone?

Why if he shouted at Reeva, didn't she respond?

Perhaps she thought he was shouting at an intruder and so she stayed quiet?

What is the truth re the lights being on?

The lights were off. The lead investigator agreed with this yesterday.

What is the truth re witnesses hearing shouting? I lived in a relative quiet rural area. It is easy to hear shouting in the middle of the night from a fair distance so even the 600m doesn't mean it isn't reliable.

600m is a lot further than most people realise. On a cold crisp windless night in a rural area, you might be able to hear some screaming and shouting from 600m. On a typical night with any kind of wind blowing, you'll have trouble making out noise more than 100m away. And this wasn't a rural area. I'd be surprised if this witness heard anything to do with the shooting and probably heard something else instead.

Go to Google maps, find your house, and then measure 600m from your house and you'll see just how far it really is.

Seachmall

gramar wrote: »

Of course it was premeditated - he knew someone was inside and he took the decision to fire four shots.

He knew someone was in there, if he didn't know it was his girlfriend, however, it's culpable homicide and he should be found not-guilty for premeditated murder.

Why didn't he fire one shot and as a kind of warning and then he would have heard her scream and wouldn't have shot anymore(assuming it wasn't a fatal shot).

That, as far as I'm aware, is actually the law in S.A. when you find an intruder. You must fire a warning shot.

But no - he fired four shots into the door. To me that means he wanted to kill whoever was in there.

Or it means he panicked.

Even if he did intend to kill the person the question is who did he intend to kill.

Bacchus

karma_ wrote: »

That's just anecdotal,

... and your basing your "evidence" on what exactly?

opinion guy

Gosub wrote: »

Your post read like you were typing from a height.... maybe a horse.:p

While there is often a blur between manslaughter and murder, accidental death is usually pretty clear cut. Did he fall off the scaffolding? Yes. Was he alone? Yes. Therefore, accidental death.

Was her death an accident? Did he intend to kill someone? (bear in mind the size of the toilet behind the door) Did he intend to kill her?

None of us know these answers for sure. However I choose to believe he killed her in a rage, based on the sketchy evidence we have. You can choose to believe what you want, that's your right.

Even after a full trial we may never hear the truth. Many, many guilty men and women are walking free today, just because they concocted a good story that couldn't reliably be debunked.

Yes all of that is true. And I personally think it was murder or manslaughter, but not premeditated.

None of what you or anyone else has said proves premeditation. Remember, if he did it in a blind uncontrolled rage that's not premeditation. The prosecution have gone so far as to say that he preplanned a story to his sister that he would say he thought there was a burglar. This is a key part of their argument in fact to prevent his bail. It also makes NO sense and contradicts there arugment that he had a temper which he lost.

Think about it. If he had the sense to preplan that, critically, he wouldn't have been in a blind rage anymore. The prosecutions case is not even consistent with itself, without even considering the evidence.

Nothing about premeditation makes sense here.

Pumpkinseeds

opinion guy wrote: »

They were reinstated on Feb 4th - before Steenkamp was killed

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/us-safrica-pistorius-investigator-idUSBRE91K05H20130221

I made my comment about when the charges were reinstated based on the comment made by Brigadier Malila, who said that they were reinstated yesterday. As for innocence a shouting match had been going on for at least an hour before gun shots were heard. He shot her repeatedly through a door. What he didn't recognise her voice or her screams?

Anyone who has ever had a neighbour who is domestically violent will tell you that its very hard to ignore. In my humble opinion it sounds like an old and sad story of a violent woman beating man eventually going to far and killing one.

karma_

Bacchus wrote: »

... and your basing your "evidence" on what exactly?

I'm not presenting evidence. I'm offering my opinion that this rat is a murderer, his story stinks and I hope he gets sent down for life.