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

StephenHendry

radharc wrote: »

I must be missing something here. Why on earth would a burglar break into someone's house then lock themselves in the bathroom? His story just sounds so implausible it's almost comical.


However as others have said it will be a tough job to prove intent.

maybe he thought the burglar was hiding there , anyway i don't think he set out to murder his girlfriend

wonderfullife

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

That's not the way criminal justice works. At all.

1. At a base level, he doesn't have to tell his story. He doesn't even have to mount a defence, should he believe silence serves his cause best.

2. "We" don't give him any benefit of doubt. Or assume his story to be true. He is presumed innocent by the Judge (and/or jury) until proven otherwise (beyond a reasonable doubt). When this gets to a civil trial he'll be mullered when the threshold is "on the preponderance of evidence"/"balance of probabilities"

3. "We" don't do any such thing. I'm confused by the "we" here, if you mean us the public on these forums then we don't have to do anything of the above we can just go with our gut feeling if we want, an opinion can be formed with little weight given to evidence! An opinion is merely that. If your "we" refers to the Judge in this case, he doesn't have to find anything that conflicts with "his story". If O.P. chose not to tell his story, then he would have nothing to search for to conflict with. All the Judge cares about is the Prosecution satisfying him beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charged crimes. In this case, O.P. "story" can cast doubt on the Prosecutions charges but it in no way changes his presumption of innocence.

4. & 5. There is no such thing here as deciding his story to be impossible and the Judge convicts. At all avenues here his story is "possible". If the Judge decides it is plausible enough to cast doubt then he acquits.

Criminal justice is quite simple at a base level. You need an Actus Reus (guilty act, tick) and a Mens Rea (Guilty Mind). They are the 2 core elements of the criminal justice system required here, the Actus Reus is clearly there, so the focus for the prosecution is to pin the forensics, statements, history of violence etc to sway the Judge beyond reasonable doubt he intended to kill her.

robinph wrote: »

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.

All 3 of your "nothing to suggests" have holes in them.

1. He has the wealth, means and motive to flee.
2. History of violence reported.
3. Plenty to suggest the charge of pre-meditated murder is valid.

It's not for you or I to decide whether he gets bail but the Prosecution are well within their rights to push for it and defence well within their rights to outline exceptional circumstances. Personally i think bail will be denied coming down to the basic fact of the violence of the crime but i wouldn't be surprised at it granted.

opinion guy

Ok lets review Pudders:

Pudders wrote: »

Evidence that he slammed a door on a girl.

I didn't ignore that - I didn't know about that until pumpkinseeds brought it up trying to imply he had a history of domestic abuse, thusly:

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

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.

As I had not heard about this I said:

opinion guy wrote: »

Source ?

You responded with the link to the article and extract - thanks much appreciated.
I then responded with my critique of the articles relevance - after all pumpkinseeds brought it up as meaning he had a history of domestic abuse.

You then used this as evidence of me ignoring evidence:

Pudders wrote: »

Evidnce that he slammed a door on a girl.

which clearly I didn't ignore because I provided my critique:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83327235&postcount=851

and you clearly know I didn't ignore because you responded:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83327362&postcount=855

So to recap - I didn't ignore the evidence - did I ?
I responded to the information within the context of which it was brought up - didn't I ?
Are we done here ? Or will you flame me some more ?

fullstop wrote: »

Well I wouldn't like to see your posting style if you were trying to be condescending.

No...you wouldn't

April O Neill

tigger123 wrote: »

The squabbling going on in this thread is unbelievable...

Agreed. So tedious.

opinion guy

karma_ wrote: »

I could accept it was a crime of passion over something he had planned in advance.

Ok I'm glad we agree on that.

So then - doesn't it follow that if it was a crime of passion he is NOT guilty of pre-meditated murder ??

It can still be murder, of course, but not premeditated murder - the crime with which he has been charged

Ash.J.Williams

As dodgey as all this looks, i doubt any man would have a motive to murder a girl he only met in November! It is possible the man was paranoid bordering on "ill". Spousal murder normally involves family law issues, jealousy, abuse, revenge etc none of which are applicable here. I doubt anyone here would run downstairs with a loaded gun without first checking your family are safe and then opening fire on a closed door...

robinph

wonderfullife wrote: »

All 3 of your "nothing to suggests" have holes in them.

1. He has the wealth, means and motive to flee.
2. History of violence reported.
3. Plenty to suggest the charge of pre-meditated murder is valid.

It's not for you or I to decide whether he gets bail but the Prosecution are well within their rights to push for it and defence well within their rights to outline exceptional circumstances. Personally i think bail will be denied coming down to the basic fact of the violence of the crime but i wouldn't be surprised at it granted.

1. Everyone has motive to flee if they have been charged with something, the wealth needed is only a few hundred quid for a plane ticket and the means need only be a pair of legs. As the magistrate asked the former lead investigator yesterday with a raised eyebrow, did he seriously think that someone of his position, standing and recognisability was a flight risk? That question resulted in laughing from the court room when the cop replied yes.
2. The history of violence is based on a claim of domestic abuse from him closing the door on someone he wanted out of his house.
3. There isn't anything to back the pre-meditated claim.

Pudders

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok lets review Pudders:



I didn't ignore that - I didn't know about that until pumpkinseeds brought it up trying to imply he had a history of domestic abuse, thusly:



As I had not heard about this I said:


You responded with the link to the article and extract - thanks much appreciated.
I then responded with my critique of the articles relevance - after all pumpkinseeds brought it up as meaning he had a history of domestic abuse.

You then used this as evidence of me ignoring evidence:


which clearly I didn't ignore because I provided my critique:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83327235&postcount=851

and you clearly know I didn't ignore because you responded:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83327362&postcount=855

So to recap - I didn't ignore the evidence - did I ?
I responded to the information within the context of which it was brought up - didn't I ?
Are we done here ? Or will you flame me some more ?




No...you wouldn't

But your original repsonse to the article was "eh have you read that" and wasn't exactly a critique. You were denying a fact that someone had put up re slamming of a door and contorted it into a discussion on whether that is evidence of domestic abuse (which i agree it isn;t). But IT DID confirm that he did slam a door on a girl.

It is extremely tedious.

You think he is innocent. Fair enough.
Others including myself think he is guilty.

In reality, neither I nor you no any more or less. We have come to differing opinions.

Pudders

Just to clarify the history of violence or threats of violence is not restricted to the door incident.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-had-a-bad-temper-20130216

Threatened to break a guy's legs.

fishy fishy

Pudders wrote: »

Just to clarify the history of violence or threats of violence is not restricted to the door incident.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-had-a-bad-temper-20130216

Threatened to break a guy's legs.

a bit of a jealous bully then I would imagine - not the lily white poor little rich guy that some would try and have your believe.

opinion guy

Pudders wrote: »

But your original repsonse to the article was "eh have you read that" and wasn't exactly a critique. You were denying a fact that someone had put up re slamming of a door and contorted it into a discussion on whether that is evidence of domestic abuse (which i agree it isn;t). But IT DID confirm that he did slam a door on a girl.

It is extremely tedious.

You think he is innocent. Fair enough.
Others including myself think he is guilty.

In reality, neither I nor you no any more or less. We have come to differing opinions.

In truth pudders - i did not realise someone different than pumpkinseeds had posted the link - hence my 'have you read that comment'.

But the point stands - it was not domestic abuse and was brought up out of context by the police in a prejudicial manner.

You are right its very tedious - so why are being pedantic about the point that it proved he slammed a door on some girl who refused to leave his house ? It did prove that. Yes your are right. Congratulations. Its not relevant.

Let me be clear - I don't think he is innocent of all crime - I think he is innocent of premeditation - the crime they are actually charging him with (and I reserve the right to review that opinion based on further evidence). I do however think he is guilty of an impulse murder or manslaughter.

sham69

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

As dodgey as all this looks, i doubt any man would have a motive to murder a girl he only met in November! It is possible the man was paranoid bordering on "ill". Spousal murder normally involves family law issues, jealousy, abuse, revenge etc none of which are applicable here. I doubt anyone here would run downstairs with a loaded gun without first checking your family are safe and then opening fire on a closed door...

In fairness nobody can really say that for sure.
Any number of things could have happened in that short few months.
There could be ex partners invlolved on either side.
What i mean by that is either person could have been texting an ex partner unknown (or Known) to the other person.

There could have been arguements about it (which would explain previous calls by the police to the house over domestic disturbance (was this ever proven?)

Another angle and I will probably get lambasted for this is that the guy (pistorius) had a god complex.

Was born with no legs, took on the world and won, how dare she become famous or how dare she text ex boyfriends etc...

All I mean by these comments is, a motive can be easily put into the equation.

Why is there no mention of phone records yet?
It does seem to be a shambles of a case.

My own personal opinion is that he is guilty, it was done out of rage (for what reason I don't know)
He does come across as an arrogant person and there has been reports of anger issues by other people who were on the receiving end of such.

As I said just my opinion.

Gosub

Can someone please enlighten me?

I seem to remember a connection between the girl and another SA sport (rugby?) star. My recollection is that it's a recent thing. If this is true, couldn't that provide the jealousy motive?

Linkies appreciated, thanks.

Seachmall

1. At a base level, he doesn't have to tell his story. He doesn't even have to mount a defence, should he believe silence serves his cause best.

Yes, but I'm directly referencing this case in which he has presented a defense.

2. "We" don't give him any benefit of doubt. Or assume his story to be true. He is presumed innocent by the Judge (and/or jury) until proven otherwise (beyond a reasonable doubt). When this gets to a civil trial he'll be mullered when the threshold is "on the preponderance of evidence"/"balance of probabilities"

3. "We" don't do any such thing. I'm confused by the "we" here, if you mean us the public on these forums then we don't have to do anything of the above we can just go with our gut feeling if we want, an opinion can be formed with little weight given to evidence! An opinion is merely that. If your "we" refers to the Judge in this case, he doesn't have to find anything that conflicts with "his story".

"We" is a term of convienence to refer to anyone appointed to represent or enforce our laws (our the laws of S.A. in this case).

4. & 5. There is no such thing here as deciding his story to be impossible and the Judge convicts. At all avenues here his story is "possible". If the Judge decides it is plausible enough to cast doubt then he acquits.

Given he has presented a plausible defense the judge acquits if he decides the story to be implausible which, in this case, would require conflicting evidence.

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's not the way criminal justice works. At all.

Nothing you posted contradicted what I said.

wonderfullife

robinph wrote: »

1. Everyone has motive to flee if they have been charged with something, the wealth needed is only a few hundred quid for a plane ticket and the means need only be a pair of legs. As the magistrate asked the former lead investigator yesterday with a raised eyebrow, did he seriously think that someone of his position, standing and recognisability was a flight risk? That question resulted in laughing from the court room when the cop replied yes.
2. The history of violence is based on a claim of domestic abuse from him closing the door on someone he wanted out of his house.
3. There isn't anything to back the pre-meditated claim.

Most people when they see the word "premeditated" conjure up images of someone sitting down for weeks plotting and scheming, hatching a plan and executing the plan.

There is plenty of case law worldwide, in the UK, USA and elsewhere, and statutes in law, where "premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder."

You may disagree there is sufficient evidence to date in court to back the claim but remember this is a bail hearing not a trial. There is plenty to suggest the charges can be made to stick. He fired 4 shots behind a closed door, acknowledges being the shooter, witness testimony of hearing screams (and remember this is Pretoria, 4,500 feet above sea level where sound travels a lot further in the dim of night than it would elsewhere), plenty to suggest he knew or should have known Reeva was behind that door.

In short, the charge based on the evidence to date is a fair charge. In the fullness of time it is up to the prosecution to prove the charge. Whether they can do so is questionable but it is a fair charge.

gramar

wonderfullife wrote: »

Most people when they see the word "premeditated" conjure up images of someone sitting down for weeks plotting and scheming, hatching a plan and executing the plan.

There is plenty of case law worldwide, in the UK, USA and elsewhere, and statutes in law, where "premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder."

I asked the question earlier about what constituted premeditated although I don't think anyone ventured a guess.

If premeditated is the time it took to cross the room, take out the pistol and go to the bathroom then he has a serious problem. If its evidence of plotting a murder days or weeks in advance and 'engineering' the situation then that would be hard to prove and would seem unlikely given the circumstances.

wonderfullife

Seachmall wrote: »

Yes, but I'm directly referencing this case in which he has presented a defense.



"We" is a term of convienence to refer to anyone appointed to represent or enforce our laws (our the laws of S.A. in this case).



Given he has presented a plausible defense the judge acquits if he decides the story to be implausible which, in this case, would require conflicting evidence.

Nothing you posted contradicted what I said.

You said "the way the criminal justice system works" (meaning, in general) and made a series of incorrect points.

Anyway, if you are referencing this trial alone there is still factual inaccuracies in your post.

"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."

"We" as in the Judge in this case given you are referring to it directly -

We never decide his story to be "impossible" and decide he is guilty. We are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt and decide he is guilty. That does not mean his story to be impossible, it means his story has not cast enough doubt on the prosecutions case.

We also assume from day 1 he is not guilty. We don't assume it after hearing the evidence. That's a very basic premise. If his story and evidence cast sufficient doubt on the prosecutions case, then that assumption of innocence remains and it is held he remains not guilty of the charge.

Seachmall

wonderfullife wrote: »

You said "the way the criminal justice system works" (meaning, in general)

I assumed, given the points and the discussion, it was clear I was referencing this case.

and made a series of incorrect points.

Which you've yet to point out.

We never decide his story to be "impossible" and decide he is guilty. We are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt and decide he is guilty. That does not mean his story to be impossible, it means his story has not cast enough doubt on the prosecutions case.

His story doesn't need to cast doubt on the prosecution's case, the prosecution's case needs to cast doubt on his.

It is not enough for the prosecution to present an alternative explanation and then turn around and say "prove otherwise!".

They must show it to be the more plausible and they must show evidence that supports their story which does not support OP's. That would be the conflict.

They could also present evidence that would be inconsistent with OP's tale of events without presenting a story of their own.

The neighbours hearing shouting would be a perfect example of this.

We also assume from day 1 he is not guilty.

Which is a point I've had to make many times in this thread.

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

Which is a point I've had to make many times in this thread.

No, you never 'had to' do any such thing. LOL, who do you think you are exactly, the formally appointed Oscar Pistorius' defence of this thread??

seamus

"Innocent until proven guilty" by implication requires that the court accepts that his story (as the only witness) is a truthful recollection until shown otherwise.

If the court doesn't assume his account of the incident is truthful, then that violates the IUPG principle. This is why it is up to the prosecution to disprove his story.

"Truthful" of course doesn't mean "factual", simply that the recollection is honest, even though it may not be accurate.

opinion guy

Right.

I think the only way the settle issues on this thread is a series of fights to the death.

First up -> Seachmall and seenitall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rl46Dpy-P4

seenitall

^^ :D:D:D Now that really made me LOL, both honestly and accurately speaking. Thanks for that, OG.

Seachmall

seenitall wrote: »

No, you never 'had to' do any such thing. LOL, who do you think you are exactly, the formally appointed Oscar Pistorius' defence of this thread??

:rolleyes:

I had to make it to further the discussion with some people.

Take Gosub, for example, who stated the evidence isn't as "crucial" as some seem to believe and that he has "gut feelings" of OP's guilt.

You can't get anywhere with that logic so for the sake of the discussion it needs to be made to him that we start with an assumption of innocence and collect evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

You also said similar things.

Gosub

Gosub wrote: »

Evidence is indeed crucial, which is why it is sometimes fabricated. A means to an end, if you like.

Screw with words all you want.

wonderfullife

Seachmall wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I had to make it to further the discussion with some people.

Take Gosub, for example, who stated the evidence isn't as "crucial" as some seem to believe and that he has "gut feelings" of OP's guilt.

You can't get anywhere with that logic so for the sake of the discussion it needs to be made to him that we start with an assumption of innocence and collect evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

You also said similar things.

Boards.ie is not a courtroom "Gut feelings" of his guilt are perfectly fine in here. Judges need a hell of a lot more than gut feelings thankfully and the evidence will be presented in the fullness of time in the trial proper.

There are 2 versions here of course - O.P. version is far more improbable than the prosecutions version. The majority of people believe he is guilty as his story is implausible to most of us. However, all that matters is what happens in court and if the prosecution can't prove the charge he will walk.

Seachmall

Gosub wrote: »

Screw with words all you want.

Gosub wrote: »

I don't believe that evidence is as crucial as you seem to believe.

Who's screwing with words?

wonderfullife wrote: »

Boards.ie is not a courtroom "Gut feelings" of his guilt are perfectly fine in here.

They are fine, but they alone are not arguments and shouldn't be treated as if they were.

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I had to make it to further the discussion with some people.

Take Gosub, for example, who stated the evidence isn't as "crucial" as some seem to believe and that he has "gut feelings" of OP's guilt.

You can't get anywhere with that logic so for the sake of the discussion it needs to be made to him that we start with an assumption of innocence and collect evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

You also said similar things.

Yes, of course I did, and Gosub is entirely right in what he said - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS THREAD, and not the Pretoria courtroom. But you seem to be either unable or unwilling to grasp that point.

When you want to dismiss someone's opinion, and 'progress the discussion' only in the manner that you deem worthy of your efforts, I'd suggest you just ignore/don't reply to posters who rile you up with having all these annoying, unsubstantiated, plucked-out-of-thin-air opinions. You'll save everyone a lot of hassle in the endgame.

There are other people on this thread other than you, and their pesky opinions will come up against your superior judgment and reasoning again and again. It'll all just wear you down...

Seachmall

seenitall wrote: »

Yes, of course I did, and Gosub is entirely right in what he said - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS THREAD, and not the Pretoria courtroom. But you seem to be either unable or unwilling to grasp that point.

I'm well aware this Boards.ie, that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least attempt having an intelligent discussion where arguments are presented and opposed.

There are other people on this thread other than you, and their pesky opinions will come up against your superior judgment and reasoning again and again. It'll all just wear you down...

People can have their opinions, but if they make a claim that I can refute I will refute it. Typically speaking that's how intelligent people come to refine their opinions. Through argument.

Don't post an opinion if you don't want it discussed. This is Boards.ie after all.

Gosub

Seachmall wrote: »

Who's screwing with words?

You are. You're only using the bits that suit you.

Just because I don't believe in the complete veracity of evidence doesn't mean I don't think it's crucial. I clarified this in my subsequent post, which I quoted above.

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

People can have their opinions, but if they make a claim that I can refute I will refute it. Typically speaking that's how intelligent people come to refine their opinions. Through argument.

Don't post an opinion if you don't want it discussed. This is Boards.ie after all.

You see, you're just going in circles here. You can refute a claim that is based on personal opinion, not evidence, no more than I can refute Oscar's version of events. There is too little evidence (or evidence known to us, anyway) on both sides of the argument to be able to do much more than offer our personal opinions.

By all means though, argue away!

Dontfadeaway

Idioteque wrote: »

From the prosecution..

"There are two people in the house and you hear a noise. Do you immediately assume it's a burglar and not the person next to you?"

"You want to protect her but you don't even look at her?"

"here was no question of self-defence since Pistorius created the danger by storming the bathroom, says Nel. He created his own feeling of vulnerability."

"The applicant's actions of firing without any indication of a threat are totally improbable"

"He fired four shots, not one shot. The only reason you fire four shots is to kill. On his own version, he's bound to be convicted"

So in the least he's looking at some form of intentional but unplanned murder of a suspected intruder...still all seems very strange about her mobile in the bathroom, balcony door being left open at night (when he lives in fear etc) and that an intruder would lock themselves in that position...most of all, that she wouldn't answer him back...She would know he has a gun and is afraid of an intruder..surely she would shout to ensure no mistaken identity.

Can't believe all this already and it's only the bail hearing!
Also what's the story with Botha!?!?...any fan of 'The Wire' would have known more about preservation of a crime scene than he seems to have!

Exactly. It's abit weird how the door was locked, only the 2 of them living there and in the middle of the night.

Cross-examining Mr Botha, Mr Roux said a post-mortem examination showed Miss Steenkamp’s bladder was empty. He said that was consistent with her getting up at 3am to go to the toilet.

Surely she went to the toilet during the night before so i don't know why he didn't check to see if she was there. His first thought was to get his gun and shoot. Why would a intruder be in that bathroom anyway. There is too many things not adding up. Even if it was a intruder, he aimed to kill by shooting 4 shots.

gramar

Has no-one anything to say about when premeditation might kick in?
It seems a lot more interesting discussion than slagging off each others comments.

gramar wrote: »

I asked the question earlier about what constituted premeditated although I don't think anyone ventured a guess.

If premeditated is the time it took to cross the room, take out the pistol and go to the bathroom then he has a serious problem. If its evidence of plotting a murder days or weeks in advance and 'engineering' the situation then that would be hard to prove and would seem unlikely given the circumstances.

Seachmall

Gosub wrote: »

You are. You're only using the bits that suit you.

Of course, anything else would be stupid!

seenitall wrote: »

You can refute a claim that is based on personal opinion, not evidence, no more than I can refute Oscar's version of events.

And it's a sad day when people take pride in their opinions being irrefutable, not because they're grounded in solid evidence or logic, but because they're not.

Gosub

gramar wrote: »

Has no-one anything to say about when premeditation might kick in?
It seems a lot more interesting discussion than slagging off each others comments.

Yeah.. agreed here. I'm fricken sick of it.

IMHO (and nothing to back it up in a legal sense) He had the time to get from the balcony to the gun, to the bathroom. In that time he had ample chance to choose his course of action. He decided to "storm the bathroom". For me, that's premeditated, unless he was in a complete rage. If it was rage driven he could probably get away with the lesses murder charge.

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

And it's a sad day when people take pride in their opinions being irrefutable, not because they're grounded in solid evidence or logic, but because they're not.

Oh please, don't make me laugh. The version of events that I and others presented is a hell of a lot more grounded in logic or any kind plausibility, than the preposterous, intelligence-insulting version of events that Team Oscar seems to have come up with.

As for evidence, long way to go yet.

Seachmall

seenitall wrote: »

Oh please, don't make me laugh. The version of events that I and others presented is a hell of a lot more grounded in logic or any kind plausibility, than the preposterous, intelligence-insulting version of events that Team Oscar seems to have come up with.

Your point would be valid had you not posted the following,

seenitall wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

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

Good.

Mine is not.

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

Your point would be valid had you not posted the following,

Well, it's lucky then that I don't give a fiddler's as to whatever criteria of validity you decide are pertinent.

(The above is no huge news, by the way. I said several times already that I don't base my opinion on the evidence - the same evidence that is as yet non-existant or merely poorly grasped by anyone on here.)

seenitall

Oh well yes, we all know THAT, but when will we hear the end of it, that's what I'd like to know.

Edit: Ninja edit, S. I'll leave this here for you anyways, let 'em wonder.;)

robinph

seenitall wrote: »

Well, it's lucky then that I don't give a fiddler's as to whatever criteria of validity you decide are pertinent.

(The above is no huge news, by the way. I said several times already that I don't base my opinion on the evidence - the same evidence that is as yet non-existant or merely poorly grasped by anyone on here.)

So what actually is this obvious sequence of events that you are proposing happened? I've not seen it yet other than the claims of people doing things differently and spotting that the girlfriend wasn't in the bed.
Her running away to hide in the loo to get away from a man with no legs is just as daft as you claim Pistouris story is.

seenitall

robinph wrote: »

So what actually is this obvious sequence of events that you are proposing happened? I've not seen it yet other than the claims of people doing things differently and spotting that the girlfriend wasn't in the bed.
Her running away to hide in the loo to get away from a man with no legs is just as daft as you claim Pistouris story is.

What do you mean? Do you mean the man can't hurt her because he has no legs? I think that would be patently untrue, especially with all the bats and the guns around the house. (It's only his word that he had no legs on at the time, btw, but I don't think that's too important anyway.)

I wrote my version, short and to the point, in my first post of the day on this thread. Look it up.

They fought, she ran to the bathroom and locked herself in, possibly because he became violent or was showing his temper, he got the gun and blasted her through the door to kingdom come.

There is also no doubt in my mind that he will escape the charge for the above crime. He wouldn't be the first and he won't be the last.

Gosub

robinph wrote: »

Her running away to hide in the loo to get away from a man with no legs is just as daft as you claim Pistouris story is.

I don't see it as daft at all, especially when you bring the gun into the scenario. If I was being chased by a person with a gun, no matter how slow that person was, I would look to put something solid between me and the gun, like a door for example. It's entirely possible that all other avenues of escape were blocked for her, looking at the floorplan.
Of course, this assumes the "domestic" story that the police are working to.

If we take the "intruder" story into account, why wouldn't he grab the gun, grab the girl, escape down the stairs and try for help locally?

wonderfullife

robinph wrote: »

So what actually is this obvious sequence of events that you are proposing happened? I've not seen it yet other than the claims of people doing things differently and spotting that the girlfriend wasn't in the bed.
Her running away to hide in the loo to get away from a man with no legs is just as daft as you claim Pistouris story is.

And you are basing this on the assumption that Oscar Pistorius was not wearing his prostethic legs. If his legs were on, he's 6'1 in height and has a sprinters upper body. He's a powerful guy. Reeva was 5'7 and not exactly built like a tank!!

If they were arguing, backed by witness evidence of screams, then it's most definitely a reasonable scenario for her to go to the toilet and lock herself in until he calmed down. Or to collect her thoughts. Or to stop crying. Or until she calmed down herself. What she wouldn't have expected is him to open fire through the door. Hell, she may even have sat down on the toilet for a pee while he is screaming at her through the door - because she would have felt the door offered her protection from his rage.

If the witness testimony of arguments and screams throughout the night are true, there is every reason to believe he had his legs on. It would make more sense to me, at least, that they were arguing and she locked herself in the bathroom (than his version of events which require massive suspension of disbelief).

BluE-WinG

Nobody here seems to notice what he did was not that unusual for South Africa. Speaking as someone who has lived there the majority of my life here is my take on the events :

1) She went to the loo in the middle of the night.
2) Oscar woke up heard a sound, crawled to the toilet, saw the open window and started to panic.
3) He shouted at her through the door, No response (She may have had headphones in or perhaps she fell asleep on the loo), he opens fire. Not actually that bizarre in south africa.

What people here don't seem to realise is if you dont defend yourself, and an intruder gets to you, youre dead. Your girlfriend/wife will be raped, and then killed possibly even in front of you. He had no legs and this makes him an even easier target, he opened fire and HAD to hit the intruder hence the multiple shots. If you dont put the intruder down - He will kill you without a second thought.

His story is plausible, although there are still a few gaps.

This is just my opinion as an ex-south african.

seenitall

^^ There's a goodly amount of (not very plausible IMO) 'if''s in the above as well: headphones, fell asleep on the loo?? That's really reaching. And he shoots to kill through a door without ascertaining that that his girlfriend is either safe, or at the very least not the person on the loo.

No, sorry, I'm not an ex-south african so feel free to discount my opinion all you like, but I'll never believe such a story as that.

What does make perfect, plausible, horrific sense to me, though, is that he did everything he did if he meant to kill his girlfriend, who had locked herself in the loo.

BluE-WinG

^^ Thinking about it from another point of view. He had called out for her numerous times. No response - Something was wrong, he saw the window open, the bathroom door locked and panicked. No answer from his GF, he KNEW someone was in there - For all he knew, the intruder had already killed his GF - He shot to kill.

Mistaken identity has claimed many many lives in south africa and it cannot be discounted as a possibility.

Yes, it is reaching, still damn plausible IMO.

7 7 12

How long away will the actual trial be, anyone estimate? (Not including the trial by media going on here and elsewhere on the internet)

TwoBirds

I do wonder how quickly he can move without his prosthetic legs on. His affidavit states 'limited mobility'; how long could it have taken him to retrieve the gun, move 7 metres down the corridor and enter the bathroom?

His mobility was impeded; it's not like he heard the noise, shouted at his girlfriend to call the police, grabbed the gun and shot through the door all in a panicked split-second. Which leads in turn to the question of why he 'shouted' at her to call the police before making his way to the bathroom (thereby alerting the hypothetical intruder to his presence), and in the time it would've taken him to get to the loo, failed to notice that Steenkamp (who he believed was in the bed) didn't respond?

Disclaimer: Innocent until proven guilty, and I actually find his story more plausible than the prosecution's case, but I can see it being attacked from plenty of angles when it comes to trial.

DebDynamite

So he got up in the middle of the night to retrieve the fan from the balcony. If he had woken her, which he obviously did, you would think she would have made some kind of noise; a groan, a stretch, a "what are you at? It's 3am", "just nipping to the loo for a pee"...

There was probably some kind of light shining in from the balcony door as it was left open, he was already up and awake, so his eyes would've become accustomed to the dark, there was no door in the bathroom, so unless she went to the toilet in complete darkness, there should've been some kind of light shining into the bedroom to help him see that Reeva was not in the bed.

It just doesn't add up for me.

opinion guy

TwoBirds wrote: »

I do wonder how quickly he can move without his prosthetic legs on. His affidavit states 'limited mobility'; how long could it have taken him to retrieve the gun, move 7 metres down the corridor and enter the bathroom?

Get down on your kness and try it yourself - crawl. He is probably a bit faster than you due to lifelong practice and being an olympic athlete

azul

He should get life for firing four shots into a small cubicle, killing whoever was inside, without shouting a warning, which he obviously didn't do. It was a cold blooded execution. He murdered the girl and whether he get's away with it or not, he's destroyed so many peoples lives and he has to live with that. How can he pick up the pieces after this. He's a pathetic coward. He's fckued either way.