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

gramar

Bacchus wrote: »

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.

At 3am it's quiet and you could easily hear people shouting at 600m assuming the window/door to the balcony was open. I live in a village and in the quiet of night you can hear loud voices from hundreds of yards away let alone shouting. The problem here is that the prosecution haven't measured exactly the distance so sound unprepared when they chop and change their story. God knows the witness probably has a hearing aid.
That doesn't change the fact however that over that distance you can't hear shouting.

Seachmall

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

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.

Hold on now, there's no marks or bruises to suggest he ever hit her.

opinion guy

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

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.

The police themselves said in court there was no evidence of any other injuries or trauma consistent with a struggle. Only injuries were the bullet wounds.

robinph

karma_ wrote: »

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.

Well what evidence are you basing that opinion on?

opinion guy

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

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.

Yeah I know - there are conflicting news stories on it. It seems Botha only found out about it himself yesterday

Bacchus

Seachmall wrote: »

Hold on now, there's no marks or bruises to suggest he ever hit her.

I think people are picking and choosing what they want to hear so that it fits their image of a violent man with a temper who murdered his girlfriend in cold blood.

This thread has been going round in circles for a while now with noone able to back up their "he's a murderer" claims with a single shred of evidence presented at the bail hearing. Pistorius's story is still holding. Up to the prosecution to present evidence that disputes that. They haven't so far, so how so many people here are convinced that he's guilty beggars belief.

gramar

Seachmall wrote: »

Hold on now, there's no marks or bruises to suggest he ever hit her.

No marks or bruises but a few bullet holes.

Gosub

opinion guy wrote: »

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.

Yes, but when you pounced on my post earlier that was all I was saying. He shot and killed his girlfriend. They're really all the facts we have at this stage. The killing could well be accidental, or is could be premeditated murder. See, we have to agree to, well... agree

The current action is a bail hearing. The evidence, if there is any, will be brought forward in the trial.

As I said earlier, and earlier, and earlier... It is my belief that he is a murderer. And that is worth exactly what you paid for it.

karma_

robinph wrote: »

Well what evidence are you basing that opinion on?

He pointed a gun at her and pulled the trigger and I don;t believe a word of his story.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

No marks or bruises but a few bullet holes.

Yep, and what exactly does that prove regarding claims of pre-meditated murder or an argument or previously hitting her?

karma_

robinph wrote: »

Yep, and what exactly does that prove regarding claims of pre-meditated murder or an argument or previously hitting her?

I think posters would be willing to concede it was more likely a rage killing over something that was planned for weeks.

Bacchus

karma_ wrote: »

He pointed a gun at her and pulled the trigger and I don;t believe a word of his story.

That's not even evidence! He pointed a gun at a closed door. According to him, he believed there was an intruder behind it. Up to the prosecution to disprove that.

You are right though, he pulled the trigger. Doesn't mean it was murder or pre-meditated.

robinph

karma_ wrote: »

He pointed a gun at her and pulled the trigger and I don;t believe a word of his story.

He pointed a gun at a door and fired. Again nobody is disputing that.

You have nothing to suggest pre-meditated murder, just that you think you would do something different in his situation.

opinion guy

karma_ wrote: »

I think posters would be willing to concede it was more likely a rage killing over something that was planned for weeks.

Nevermind posters - what do you think - was it a rage killing or something he planned ?

Bacchus

karma_ wrote: »

I think posters would be willing to concede it was more likely a rage killing over something that was planned for weeks.

Could equally be that his story is the true version of events and he thought there was an intruder behind the door. Where there is doubt, I prefer to give the person the benefit of it and let the prosecution prove otherwise.

robinph

karma_ wrote: »

I think posters would be willing to concede it was more likely a rage killing over something that was planned for weeks.

That would be more believable, but that is not the case that the prosecution are charging him with. They have nothing to suggest an argument between them that went wrong, and even if they did I don't think the evidence really fits that scenario too well either.

seenitall

Bacchus wrote: »

I think people are picking and choosing what they want to hear so that it fits their image of a violent man with a temper who murdered his girlfriend in cold blood.

This thread has been going round in circles for a while now with noone able to back up their "he's a murderer" claims with a single shred of evidence presented at the bail hearing. Pistorius's story is still holding. Up to the prosecution to present evidence that disputes that. They haven't so far, so how so many people here are convinced that he's guilty beggars belief.

How?

Well, it wouldn't exactly be the first time in history for a murderer to walk free on the lack of hard evidence, would it?

The problem with murder cases is that the only other person who could be relied on to tell the truth and not lies to save their murdering skin, is dead and can't give evidence.

And his story does stink to high heaven, so that's what people are responding to, I would guess.

I really hope I'm wrong, but I can only guess that the best we can hope for is a book, in a few years, entitled "If I Knew It Was Reeva Behind The Door..."

Seachmall

karma_,

Do you believe given the evidence presented thus-far and the due process that OP is likely to, or should, receive a guilty conviction in accordance with the generally accepted process of conviction?


Disregard any possible corruption or bias in the judge or jury, or any incompetency by either the prosecution or defense and any speculation or bias on your behalf. But based solely and entirely on the known evidence and the due process.


If yes, what evidence?

Pumpkinseeds

Seachmall wrote: »

Hold on now, there's no marks or bruises to suggest he ever hit her.

He has a history of slamming a woman in a door. Nice and classy. He didn't necessarily have to have been beating the woman he killed. She was fairly prominent in the media after the reality show and it would have killed his career if it was obvious that he beat her. Only he knows what went on that night.

gramar

How long to you have to mull it over before it becomes premeditated?
A day, a week, a year?
If I have a falling out with someone today and come into work tomorrow and shoot them is that premeditated or is it still in the heat of the moment?

karma_

Bacchus wrote: »

Could equally be that his story is the true version of events and he thought there was an intruder behind the door. Where there is doubt, I prefer to give the person the benefit of it and let the prosecution prove otherwise.

Yeah... no, just no. I don't buy that story for one second.

fullstop

opinion guy wrote: »

Were you a witness ? You should present yourself to the prosecution if so

This old chestnut. Yes, of course he was a witness, probably on a plane to SA right now to give evidence. Other people are allowed to have a different opinion to yours....

Bacchus

seenitall wrote: »

How?

Well, it wouldn't exactly be the first time in history for a murderer to walk free on the lack of hard evidence, would it?

Is that really your logic as to why you believe he's guilty? Other people have gotten off murder charges before, therefore he is guilty. Before he's even had a trial!

Once again. It's beggars belief how people are so quick to call him a murderer when the prosecution have not presented one piece of evidence to back up their story.

karma_

Bacchus wrote: »

Is that really your logic as to why you believe he's guilty? Other people have gotten off murder charges before, therefore he is guilty. Before he's even had a trial!

Once again. It's beggars belief how people are so quick to call him a murderer when the prosecution have not presented one piece of evidence to back up their story.

It also beggars belief that anyone could look at the story he presented and go 'Ah here, that sounds like the the truth, poor guy.'

Seachmall

karma_ wrote: »

It also beggars belief that anyone could look at the story he presented and go 'Ah here, that sounds like the the truth, poor guy.'

It's not beggars belief, it is the correct application of a widely accepted method of determining guilt or innocence in a criminal matter.



You have your opinion. It won't be swayed because you have incorrectly assigned the burden of proof to OP. And you are perfectly happy with that, because it confirms your opinion.

fullstop

seamus wrote: »

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.

If there wasn't about 2000 people on the street walking and chatting and generally making noise, you'd hear plenty. Take golf for example, player tees off, hits it offline and shouts 'fore'. More often than not you'll hear that up to 300m away. Which of the 2 scenarios would the dead of night in a gated estate be more like?

Bacchus

karma_ wrote: »

Yeah... no, just no. I don't buy that story for one second.

So, I say that the version of events you are presenting are equally as possible as the one Pistorius is presenting and you just go into denial. Nice insight into your mentality right there. Someone doesn't conform 100% to your line of thinking and you just ignore it.

seenitall

Bacchus wrote: »

Is that really your logic as to why you believe he's guilty? Other people have gotten off murder charges before, therefore he is guilty. Before he's even had a trial!

Once again. It's beggars belief how people are so quick to call him a murderer when the prosecution have not presented one piece of evidence to back up their story.

No, that's not all I wrote. And what does the trial have to do with me voicing my opinion? He'll get his fair trial, and I only suspect that it will be 'fairer' to him than to the victim.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, many people just can't swallow that BS story of his and that's the long and the short of it. The precedent of similar things having happened before is just an indication of what could easily happen in this case too.

Bacchus

karma_ wrote: »

It also beggars belief that anyone could look at the story he presented and go 'Ah here, that sounds like the the truth, poor guy.'

"poor guy" Quote me where I said that :rolleyes:

I just see reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case and am open to the possibility that Pistorius is telling the truth.

robinph

seenitall wrote: »

No, that's not all I wrote. And what does the trial have to do with me voicing my opinion? He'll get his fair trial, and I only suspect that it will be 'fairer' to him than to the victim.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, many people just can't swallow that BS story of his and that's the long and the short of it. The precedent of similar things having happened before is just an indication of what could easily happen in this case too.

What are you basing your claim of BS on?

The investigating officer doesn't have anything to dispute it, what have you got?

opinion guy

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

He has a history of slamming a woman in a door. Nice and classy.

Source ?

opinion guy

Karma can you answer this please:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83326566&postcount=815

Bacchus

seenitall wrote: »

No, that's not all I wrote. And what does the trial have to do with me voicing my opinion? He'll get his fair trial, and I only suspect that it will be 'fairer' to him than to the victim.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, many people just can't swallow that BS story of his and that's the long and the short of it. The precedent of similar things having happened before is just an indication of what could easily happen in this case too.

I know it's not all you wrote, but the rest of what you wrote was along the same sentiment and I did not feel it needed to be fully quoted.

You asked me "How" it beggars belief and then use historical anecdotes to back up your claim that he is guilty. I called you out on that and you, as you put it, "got your knickers in a twist"

You are free to voice your opinion. As am I.

opinion guy

fullstop wrote: »

This old chestnut. Yes, of course he was a witness, probably on a plane to SA right now to give evidence. Other people are allowed to have a different opinion to yours....

And i am allowed to question their beliefs and ask them to back them up. Not my fault if they can't

fullstop wrote: »

If there wasn't about 2000 people on the street walking and chatting and generally making noise, you'd hear plenty. Take golf for example, player tees off, hits it offline and shouts 'fore'. More often than not you'll hear that up to 300m away. Which of the 2 scenarios would the dead of night in a gated estate be more like?

The policeman admitted in court on cross examination that the witness could not identify who was shouting. Could have been anyone in a housing estate from 300-600m away

seenitall

Bacchus wrote: »

I know it's not all you wrote, but the rest of what you wrote was along the same sentiment and I did not feel it needed to be fully quoted.

You asked me "How" it beggars belief and then use historical anecdotes to back up your claim that he is guilty. I called you out on that and you, as you put it, "got your knickers in a twist"

You are free to voice your opinion. As am I.

My knickers are not the ones that in the twist, B.

You 'called me out' on what exactly? The correct assertion that a murderer getting away with murder has happened before and will happen again? Well done you!

Pudders

opinion guy wrote: »

Karma can you answer this please:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83326566&postcount=815

Oscar Pistorius’ Domestic Violence Past

Asked by reporters if she meant “domestic violence,” Denise nodded.
In 2009, the 26-year-old paralympian, who was the first double amputee to ever compete in the Olympics, was arrested and spent a night in jail after allegedly physically assaulting a 19-year-old girl at his house.
The girl had been asked to leave a party Oscar was hosting, and when she refused, he slammed the front door on her, incidentally catching the girl’s leg with it. The door-slamming inflicted bruises on the girl, and Oscar was initially charged with assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The next day, the charge was reduced to common assault, and a month later prosecutors dropped the charges.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/02/14/oscar-pistorious-murder-domestic-violence-history-girlfriend-shot/

robinph

seenitall wrote: »

My knickers are not the ones that in the twist, B.

You 'called me out' on what exactly? The correct assertion that a murderer getting away with murder has happened before and will happen again? Well done you!

Complete irrelevance to anything then.

In other news, a man crossed the road this morning on the way to work.

opinion guy

So this is where the story on the detective came from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21531446

Unclear when the charges were reinstated

seenitall

robinph wrote: »

What are you basing your claim of BS on?

The investigating officer doesn't have anything to dispute it, what have you got?

I already wrote what I am basing it on, in my first post on this thread (of today). Look it up if interested, I don't want to be repeating myself all the time.

As 'what I am basing it on' is not hard evidence, and also if the prosecution seriously don't get their act together in some shape or form, I also wrote 'a claim' that I think he will get away with murder.

opinion guy

Pudders wrote: »

Oscar Pistorius’ Domestic Violence Past

Asked by reporters if she meant “domestic violence,” Denise nodded.
In 2009, the 26-year-old paralympian, who was the first double amputee to ever compete in the Olympics, was arrested and spent a night in jail after allegedly physically assaulting a 19-year-old girl at his house.
The girl had been asked to leave a party Oscar was hosting, and when she refused, he slammed the front door on her, incidentally catching the girl’s leg with it. The door-slamming inflicted bruises on the girl, and Oscar was initially charged with assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The next day, the charge was reduced to common assault, and a month later prosecutors dropped the charges.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/02/14/oscar-pistorious-murder-domestic-violence-history-girlfriend-shot/

Eh.....did you read this yourself ??

gramar

There are a lot of dodgy elements to his story that might appear unplausible to most people but can be explained away as unusual but not incriminating. The fact that the prosecution hasn't declared any hard evidence yet would also favour his case.
However I would say that most people are not convinced by his account and suspect that his actions are not the actions you might reasonably expect in this situation and therefore tend to think he is guilty of intentionally murdering his girlfriend.

I understand that it's hard to put ourselves in his shoes but that's what jurors do all around the world everyday and if I have to imagine myself in his shoes then I don't think as a reasonable person I would have acted in that way.

Personally I'm a 'looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...it's a duck.' kind of person and from what I've read and seen my feeling is that he shot her in cold blood.

Bacchus

seenitall wrote: »

My knickers are not the ones that in the twist, B.

You 'called me out' on what exactly? The correct assertion that a murderer getting away with murder has happened before and will happen again? Well done you!

I called you out on using anecdotal, "it's happened before" evidence to dispute my disbelief that people are jumping to the conclusion that Pistorius is a murderer. You didn't like that and it seemed like you thought I was trying to stop you voicing your opinion and then told me not to get my knickers in a twist (I wear boxers btw).

What has happened to other people in the past has got absolutely nothing to do with the case yet you use it as a stick to beat Pistorius with. How about you point out something relevant to back up your stance?

seenitall

robinph wrote: »

Complete irrelevance to anything then.

In other news, a man crossed the road this morning on the way to work.

Excuse me, it is your opinion this is irrelevant.

It is many other people's opinion that is it very relevant to this case.

This is all I am discussing here, our opinions. I am not sitting in a SA courtroom, after all.

In other news, none so blind as those who won't see.

@ Bacchus, see above.

robinph

seenitall wrote: »

Excuse me, it is your opinion this is irrelevant.

It is many other people's opinion that is it very relevant to this case.

This is all I am discussing here, our opinions. I am not sitting in a SA courtroom, after all.

In other news, none so blind as those who won't see.

My opinion is waiting for some evidence to be presented to convince me one way or the other.

So far there is none for the prosecution, therefore Pistouris statement which is not disputed by the police is all that we have to go on for the events that took place.

Pudders

opinion guy wrote: »

Eh.....did you read this yourself ??

Yes. You asked for a source of him slamming the door on a girl. This was the first of a load of articles on it.

You are not prepared to accept any counter arguements or facts which don't go along with the reasonable doubt tag.

You asked for evidence on him slamming a door. There is an article.

I actually thought you were giving fairly reasonable and sound arguements as to why he may be innocent throughout the thread but you are now being blinded completely and ignoring any fact which doesn't agree with you.

seenitall

robinph wrote: »

My opinion is waiting for some evidence to be presented to convince me one way or the other.

Good.

Mine is not.

Bacchus

seenitall wrote: »

Excuse me, it is your opinion this is irrelevant.

It is many other people's opinion that is it very relevant to this case.

This is all I am discussing here, our opinions. I am not sitting in a SA courtroom, after all.

In other news, none so blind as those who won't see.

@ Bacchus, see above.

You just keep saying it's your opinion but when anyone questions it, you have nothing to back it up.

What exactly is it that you are saying is relevant to the case? Unless I've missed something, you are referring to the "murderers have walked free before" post you made earlier? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Bacchus

robinph wrote:

My opinion is waiting for some evidence to be presented to convince me one way or the other.

seenitall wrote: »

Good.

Mine is not.

Wow! Just wow. Screw the evidence, this guy is clearly guilty.

fullstop

opinion guy wrote: »

And i am allowed to question their beliefs and ask them to back them up. Not my fault if they can't




The policeman admitted in court on cross examination that the witness could not identify who was shouting. Could have been anyone in a housing estate from 300-600m away

Of course you're allowed to question their beliefs. Maybe try being less condescending about it.

I was answering Seamus's assertion that you wouldn't be able to hear shouting from 300m away. Am I wrong?

opinion guy

Pudders wrote: »

Yes. You asked for a source of him slamming the door on a girl. This was the first of a load of articles on it.

You are not prepared to accept any counter arguements or facts which don't go along with the reasonable doubt tag.

You asked for evidence on him slamming a door. There is an article.

I actually thought you were giving fairly reasonable and sound arguements as to why he may be innocent throughout the thread but you are now being blinded completely and ignoring any fact which doesn't agree with you.

He kicked someone out of his house who refused to leave and in the process she got hurt. Is that a history of domestic violence ??? Well definitely not because he wasn't sharing a home with her so by definition its not domestic violence. The charges were also dropped.

Its also a long, LONG way from that to shooting your girlfriend of 2 months in the middle of the night, your girlfriend whom by friends accounts you are deeply in love with, happy with and planning to marry - and in the process throwing away your own life/career/fans/achievements - don't you think ?