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

gramar

johnr1 wrote: »

Constructive to an agenda of convicting him or aquitting him ? No, but it was more relevant than your post above. I've already contributed my opinions on that to the thread.

Whats your problem?

I have also contributed my own opinions but you clearly haven't read that far back in the posts.

Yes, very relevant. White man goes to jail in South Africa and gets raped and gets aids.

As for my own post - if the police were called to an earlier incident and then two hours later she's been shot it would suggest that he knew who he
was shooting. I'd day that's relevant to a discussion topic about the circumstances of the shooting and whether is was premeditated or not.

seamus

I suspect that money goes a long way in an SA prison and it's not very difficult to buy yourself some nicer accommodation and some protection.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

Car crashes happen every day and unfortunately sometimes people die.

His brother being involved in a car crash is hardly grounds for making slurs against the whole family.

they seem to have very bad luck where women are concerned. two of them up on charges of killing women.

I'd keep well away from that lot if I was living in SA.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

they seem to have very bad luck where women are concerned. two of them up on charges of killing women.

I'd keep well away from that lot if I was living in SA.

So are you suggesting that Carl Pistouris was deliberately on the lookout for female motorcyclists to crash into?

johnr1

gramar wrote: »

I have also contributed my own opinions but you clearly haven't read that far back in the posts.

Yes, very relevant. White man goes to jail in South Africa and gets raped and gets aids.

As for my own post - if the police were called to an earlier incident and then two hours later she's been shot it would suggest that he knew who he
was shooting. I'd day that's relevant to a discussion topic about the circumstances of the shooting and whether is was premeditated or not.

I wasn't referring to that post.

Again: What is your problem? You felt the need to attack me. Why?

gramar

johnr1 wrote: »

I wasn't referring to that post.

Again: What is your problem? You felt the need to attack me. Why?

No attack John.

I was just making the point that in a thread about what might or might not have happened I don't think that saying he's f$%ked and that he'll get murdered in jail or raped and suffer from aids is relevant.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

So are you suggesting that Carl Pistouris was deliberately on the lookout for female motorcyclists to crash into?

what?

where did I say that.

I can't help how your mind reacts to my posts, but I can guarantee you that is not what I was suggesting at all.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

what?

where did I say that.

I can't help how your mind reacts to my posts, but I can guarantee you that is not what I was suggesting at all.

What are you suggesting then?

fishy fishy wrote: »

these crowd shouldn't be allowed out. :roll eyes:

fishy fishy wrote: »

I'd keep well away from that lot if I was living in SA.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

What are you suggesting then?

i find it quite bizarre that these two brother are involved in the death of two women. At no stage did i suggest what you said. no offense but I think in your efforts to "defend" them at all costs, you are losing sight of the actual posts on here and reading into everything. :cool:

robinph

I really know I should stop feeding you...

fishy fishy wrote: »

i find it quite bizarre that these two brother are involved in the death of two women. At no stage did i suggest what you said. no offense but I think in your efforts to "defend" them at all costs, you are losing sight of the actual posts on here and reading into everything. :cool:

It's a coincidence that two women have died in two completely separate events, nothing more.

I'm certainly not defending either of them. I would defend their right to fair trials though. You seem to have already decided on their guilt, based on nothing.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

I really know I should stop feeding you...




It's a coincidence that two women have died in two completely separate events, nothing more.

I'm certainly not defending either of them. I would defend their right to fair trials though. You seem to have already decided on their guilt, based on nothing.

lets agree to disagree robin - I don't get you, you don't get me. The end.

Seachmall

gramar wrote: »

I just looked up the timeline of events (thesouthsfrican.com) and I saw a detail that I hadn't been previously aware of:

Thursday 14 February:
1am (CAT): Police called to Oscar Pistorius’s home in Silverwoods Estate, Pretoria after domestic disturbance.

Can anyone verify that the police were called at 1am?

I think it was mentioned earlier that he was kicking a girl out after a party and closed the door on her leg.

gramar

Seachmall wrote: »

I think it was mentioned earlier that he was kicking a girl out after a party and closed the door on her leg.

I think the party incident you refer to was years before. In the southafrican.com they are referring to 1am the same night - two hours before the shooting. It's not very clear but I think it was neighbours disturbed by the arguing who called them.

seamus

Afair, it was initially reported that police were called to an incident earlier in the night, but this report was never corroborated by any police source. It was never brought up in the bail hearing, which suggests to me that it never happened.

An official response to a domestic incident at 1am would have almost completely disproven Pistorious's account of events.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

I think the party incident you refer to was years before. In the southafrican.com they are referring to 1am the same night - two hours before the shooting. It's not very clear but I think it was neighbours disturbed by the arguing who called them.

It's strange that the prosecution didn't bring up that in the bail hearing. So it was a bit complicated for the police to check the phone records with the paramedics and mobile companies in order to establish timings, you'd think they would know about calls that came into themselves that night though. Instead of bringing up that they were called earlier that night, they refer to a "witness" from 600m away, 300m away, oh somewhere over there I think.

gramar

gramar wrote: »

I think the party incident you refer to was years before. In the southafrican.com they are referring to 1am the same night - two hours before the shooting. It's not very clear but I think it was neighbours disturbed by the arguing who called them.

I think the story of police getting called to the house earlier is misinformation, it's on a few newspaper webpages but I think they were intentionally muddying the waters.

gramar

"National broadsheet Beeld reports that police had been called to Pistorius's house two hours before the shooting, after neighbors complained of a loud argument between him and Steenkamp"

It's in Beeld but in Afrikaans.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

I think the story of police getting called to the house earlier is misinformation, it's on a few newspaper webpages but I think they were intentionally muddying the waters.

Was reading one of the links to an SA news site before and they referred to the Daily Mail as if that was the source of some of their information. Definitely some Chinese whispers going on in one new source making something up from who knows where, then it gets re-reported, and then re-reported and then becomes "fact".

aidan24326

gramar wrote: »

"National broadsheet Beeld reports that police had been called to Pistorius's house two hours before the shooting, after neighbors complained of a loud argument between him and Steenkamp"

It's in Beeld but in Afrikaans.

That must be bullsh1t since I don't recall there being any mention of it in court and it's something the prosecution would surely have brought up.

gramar

aidan24326 wrote: »

That must be bullsh1t since I don't recall there being any mention of it in court and it's something the prosecution would surely have brought up.

Totally agree - it would have been huge news.
In anyones book a domestic abuse followed shortly by a shooting would be almost like a confession.

seamus

Yeah, chinese whispers I'd say. Probably the police "witness" who reported hearing screaming and shouting before the shooting and through many hurried phone calls and texts this was translated into the police having been called about a domestic incident hours before the shooting.

Da Shins Kelly

aidan24326 wrote: »

That must be bullsh1t since I don't recall there being any mention of it in court and it's something the prosecution would surely have brought up.

The actual trial hasn't happened yet. It was just the whole bail process. There may be evidence that the public don't know about yet that is being saved for when he actually goes on trial. It probably takes some time to properly get all this evidence together.

aidan24326

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

The actual trial hasn't happened yet. It was just the whole bail process. There may be evidence that the public don't know about yet that is being saved for when he actually goes on trial. It probably takes some time to properly get all this evidence together.

Oh I know it was just a bail hearing but at the same time the prosecution were going out of their way to paint him as some cold-hearted calculating murderer so as to get bail denied and if this were true then it would surely have been another string to their bow in achieving their aim. Him getting bail the way he did gives him a better chance of an acquittal imo.

wonderfullife

aidan24326 wrote: »

Oh I know it was just a bail hearing but at the same time the prosecution were going out of their way to paint him as some cold-hearted calculating murderer so as to get bail denied and if this were true then it would surely have been another string to their bow in achieving their aim. Him getting bail the way he did gives him a better chance of an acquittal imo.

First of all, the bail Judge went out of his way to make the point that Hinton Botha is not the States case. And that the State has a very strong case in itself with many improbabilities in Pistorius version of events.

The States case can only be strengthened as time progresses and more detailed forensics and ballistics become available. I am basing that on the premise their initial findings over the trajectory of the bullets were correct and with more time they can conduct tests to rule out Pistorius shooting from the height/distance needed to back up his version of events.

The State did not succeed in the argument for bail as it did not satisfy the Judge he was a flight risk or at risk of re-offending. Pistorius fame and image helped in that respect, as it would be difficult to envisage him disappearing into the sunset. Him making bail will have little impact on the trial Judge.

wonderfullife

Seachmall wrote: »

But still, had they mentioned it it would almost guarantee OP wouldn't get bail. And not mentioning it doesn't benefit their case at all because they have to share evidence anyway for the trial.

And even still saying they didn't mention it so as not to disclose their case against OP to OP is a bit redundant. If he beat her with a bat he would obviously know he beat her with a bat so he would presumably know that would be brought up in the case.

And further, he could have easily come up with a different story that wouldn't be undermined by something so blatantly obvious. Why would he tell this story knowing full well it has a 0% chance of success because of how easily disprovable it is?


I'm sceptical of it anyway, sounds like another case of media reporting on hearsay.

If the cricket bat story is true, then not mentioning it at the bail hearing most definitely can help the States case. In fact, it can act as a trap.

Pistorius had to offer a version of events at the bail hearing; he offered a sworn affadavit stating his side of the story. If the forensics can prove the cricket bat was used to attack her skull, it immediately blows his account out of the water.

robinph

wonderfullife wrote: »

If the cricket bat story is true, then not mentioning it at the bail hearing most definitely can help the States case. In fact, it can act as a trap.

Pistorius had to offer a version of events at the bail hearing; he offered a sworn affadavit stating his side of the story. If the forensics can prove the cricket bat was used to attack her skull, it immediately blows his account out of the water.

It can't be a trap because Pistorius would know and would have had to come up with some justification for the other injuries. He didn't mention it though. There was no mention of him forgetting what happened.

I agree that if there is cricket bat injuries then it's game over, but so does Pistorius. If it happened then he needed to mention it more than the prosecution did.

gramar

I'd say the state has a few tricks up it's sleeve.
When Botha came out first he was totally opposed to bail. It was as if they had stonewall evidence of a premeditated crime. I think they probably did and he just made an arse of verifying it and presenting it. As has been mentioned they now have time to collate and verify and hypothesize and not only that they have OP's sworn version of events that they can pick apart which they will try to show to be untrue or improbable.

robinph

wonderfullife wrote: »

First of all, the bail Judge went out of his way to make the point that Hinton Botha is not the States case. And that the State has a very strong case in itself with many improbabilities in Pistorius version of events.

I thought the magistrate was saying that the prosecution case was weak, and the defence case was equally weak.

The defence were not able to meet the requirements for gaining bail on a schedule 6 charge, but the prosecution were not able to provide enough to justify it's status as schedule 6 but there also wasn't enough to justify downgrading the charge.

gramar wrote: »

I'd say the state has a few tricks up it's sleeve.
When Botha came out first he was totally opposed to bail. It was as if they had stonewall evidence of a premeditated crime. I think they probably did and he just made an arse of verifying it and presenting it. As has been mentioned they now have time to collate and verify and hypothesize and not only that they have OP's sworn version of events that they can pick apart which they will try to show to be untrue or improbable.

Is showing Pistouris' case to be improbable enough though? I mean it is already improbable without much else needing to be said. The prosecution case is also improbable though, and they need to show that it is actually beyond reasonable doubt that things happened the way they say.

gramar

You're right, Showing his story to be improbable wouldn't be enough especially as there is no jury. If there was a jury they would be planting seeds of doubt and influencing their perception without actually presenting hard facts.

wonderfullife

robinph wrote: »

I thought the magistrate was saying that the prosecution case was weak, and the defence case was equally weak.

The defence were not able to meet the requirements for gaining bail on a schedule 6 charge, but the prosecution were not able to provide enough to justify it's status as schedule 6 but there also wasn't enough to justify downgrading the charge.



Is showing Pistouris' case to be improbable enough though? I mean it is already improbable without much else needing to be said. The prosecution case is also improbable though, and they need to show that it is actually beyond reasonable doubt that things happened the way they say.

This was a bail hearing obviously and the onus was firmly on the Prosecution to prove 'exceptional circumstances' existed to warrant his release on bail. Hence they produced a sworn affadavit from Pistorius offering a version of events. Enough to buy his freedom in the here and now. At the end of the day, Pistorius is likely to have said to his legal team "just get me out on bail". To that extent, at least, neglecting any information re: a cricket bat served his purpose to get bail but will go against him at trial. With the big proviso that the claim is true.

The Judge didn't comment on the strength or weakness of the States case for purposes of trial, he was well aware most of the investigation was not concluded. He felt it weak in so far as it didn't make a sufficient case to argue Pistorius was a flight risk or at risk of re-offending. The relative strength or weakness of their overall case is for the trial judge.

TwoBirds

wonderfullife wrote: »

This was a bail hearing obviously and the onus was firmly on the Prosecution to prove 'exceptional circumstances' existed to warrant his release on bail. Hence they produced a sworn affadavit from Pistorius offering a version of events. Enough to buy his freedom in the here and now. At the end of the day, Pistorius is likely to have said to his legal team "just get me out on bail". To that extent, at least, neglecting any information re: a cricket bat served his purpose to get bail but will go against him at trial. With the big proviso that the claim is true.

I kinda disagree with this in the sense that while Pistorius's immediate priority was to get bail, his legal team (if they have any sense) surely would have advised him in the strongest terms not to provide any information that could be so easily refuted when the case goes to trial. Even if he said 'just get me bail' I'm sure his lawyers would've went through his affidavit with a fine tooth comb; I imagine any information he provided in it was examined extremely carefully by his team. Regardless of his priorities or his desire to get bail, the defence knew it was a massive risk to provide his version of events at such an early stage, considering he wasn't legally obliged to do so. Yes, the priority was to provide sufficient information to ensure bail, but wouldn't it be really stupid (for lack of a better word) to give a fairy story to buy a few months of freedom, at the cost of years and years in a prison cell?



On a side note, the Pistorius team released a statement this evening saying that he's having a private memorial service for Reeva Steenkamp in his home this evening and asking for privacy. IMHO, it's the first time their 'PR' dealings have been so wide off the mark... It wasn't necessary to reveal something like that to the media, so I'm sure it was intended to show sensitivity and grief but it smacks of an overly callous attempt at trying to curry favour (even to someone who's been quite adamant in defending his cause). Just seems like a bit of a media misstep, might get peoples' backs up as opposed to provoking empathy.

wonderfullife

TwoBirds wrote: »

I kinda disagree with this in the sense that while Pistorius's immediate priority was to get bail, his legal team (if they have any sense) surely would have advised him in the strongest terms not to provide any information that could be so easily refuted when the case goes to trial. Even if he said 'just get me bail' I'm sure his lawyers would've went through his affidavit with a fine tooth comb; I imagine any information he provided in it was examined extremely carefully by his team. Regardless of his priorities or his desire to get bail, the defence knew it was a massive risk to provide his version of events at such an early stage, considering he wasn't legally obliged to do so. Yes, the priority was to provide sufficient information to ensure bail, but wouldn't it be really stupid (for lack of a better word) to give a fairy story to buy a few months of freedom, at the cost of years and years in a prison cell?



On a side note, the Pistorius team released a statement this evening saying that he's having a private memorial service for Reeva Steenkamp in his home this evening and asking for privacy. IMHO, it's the first time their 'PR' dealings have been so wide off the mark... It wasn't necessary to reveal something like that to the media, so I'm sure it was intended to show sensitivity and grief but it smacks of an overly callous attempt at trying to curry favour (even to someone who's been quite adamant in defending his cause). Just seems like a bit of a media misstep, might get peoples' backs up as opposed to provoking empathy.

At the end of the day, i would think Pistorius wanted to avoid 4 months in a SA prison at all costs. He'd be a high profile target inside.

The defence team needed to be fairly sure he was either a) telling the truth or b) his version of events couldn't be easily rebutted before handing in a sworn affadavit.

But there is another angle of course - he says keep me out of jail and in the meantime work with prosecutors on a plea bargain of culpable homicide where he ends up paying a large fine and suspended sentence. If the Prosecution do indeed have forensic evidence of a crushed skull or firm ballistic evidence to rebutt his version of events, then the best case is Pistorius to get his legal team to thrash out a plea bargain.

In that respect, if his story is some sort of plausible fairytale, then it has served its purpose. If he is telling the truth he will fight this in court but i strongly doubt his version of events and think the State will have enough up their sleeve. So a plea bargain may well decide this case.

phoenix999

The latest twist is this sad story - was Reeva pregnant and did this cause the argument?

http://perezhilton.com/fitperez/2013-02-25-oscar-pistorius-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp-is-speculated-to-have-been-pregnant

wonderfullife

phoenix999 wrote: »

The latest twist is this sad story - was Reeva pregnant and did this cause the argument?

http://perezhilton.com/fitperez/2013-02-25-oscar-pistorius-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp-is-speculated-to-have-been-pregnant

Another sad thing to read (if true).

Of course we have to be careful about all these un-named sources and take them with a pinch of salt.

That being said, too many un-named sources are coming out with information in recent days, all of which are going along the lines of police being called THAT night due to an argument, all of which offering the cricket bat/crushed skull version, and now this.... Sometimes it's easier to dismiss 'sources' as unfounded but there's another adage that comes to mind - No smoke without fire.

Stheno

phoenix999 wrote: »

The latest twist is this sad story - was Reeva pregnant and did this cause the argument?

http://perezhilton.com/fitperez/2013-02-25-oscar-pistorius-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp-is-speculated-to-have-been-pregnant

That story sounds like bull, I stopped reading after I read illegal steroids.

wonderfullife

wonderfullife wrote: »

Sometimes it's easier to dismiss 'sources' as unfounded but there's another adage that comes to mind - No smoke without fire.

I hate that reasoning, I think it's incredibly dangerous and I'd like to see the phrase wiped from the English language.

It's exactly that thinking that kept the Birmingham Six and any number of miscarriages of justice behind bars for years or decades of their lives.

Sometimes there is a huge amount of smoke, and no fire at all.

wonderfullife

Candie wrote: »

I hate that reasoning, I think it's incredibly dangerous and I'd like to see the phrase wiped from the English language.

It's exactly that thinking that kept the Birmingham Six and any number of miscarriages of justice behind bars for years or decades of their lives.

Sometimes there is a huge amount of smoke, and no fire at all.

To clarify - publications take a much bigger risk in the modern age than they did in the 1980s circa Birmingham Six. When you cite un-named sources and put your name to a piece, especially post-Levenson, you'd want to be fairly certain of your information.

Put another way, if the Daily Mail claim re: the cricket bat is false, and if the pregnancy claims are unfounded, publications will find themselves inside a court room themselves rather quickly. So to see very similar stories come out across varying publications means either they have good sources or they are all in for some lawsuits.

Stheno

wonderfullife wrote: »

To clarify - publications take a much bigger risk in the modern age than they did in the 1980s circa Birmingham Six. When you cite un-named sources and put your name to a piece, especially post-Levenson, you'd want to be fairly certain of your information.

Put another way, if the Daily Mail claim re: the cricket bat is false, and if the pregnancy claims are unfounded, publications will find themselves inside a court room themselves rather quickly. So to see very similar stories come out across varying publications means either they have good sources or they are all in for some lawsuits.

What similar stories? I've seen one link to the DM about the cricket bat, no other, and now this supposed pregnancy which caused an illegal drug user to go over the edge?

7 7 12

I heard Oscar pistorius was part of an evil underground race of crab people and Reeva was onto his secret, so the Crab King ordered him to (in his words) "make the problem disappear"...

No smoke without fire as they say

wonderfullife

wonderfullife wrote: »

To clarify - publications take a much bigger risk in the modern age than they did in the 1980s circa Birmingham Six. When you cite un-named sources and put your name to a piece, especially post-Levenson, you'd want to be fairly certain of your information.

Put another way, if the Daily Mail claim re: the cricket bat is false, and if the pregnancy claims are unfounded, publications will find themselves inside a court room themselves rather quickly. So to see very similar stories come out across varying publications means either they have good sources or they are all in for some lawsuits.

If it's not proven, its speculation or suspicion. Perez Hilton will never be a credible source of news so I'm not concerned with any crap I read on that site.

I'll wait until I hear the facts as presented before the courts before I decide if its smoke or a smokescreen.

Sure, the guy looks guilty (of pre-meditated murder rather than culpable homicide), in fact I'd go so far as to say everything seems to point to it. That still doesn't mean he actually is though.

Stheno

Candie wrote: »

Sure, the guy looks guilty, in fact I'd go so far as to say everything seems to point to it. That still doesn't mean he actually is though.

He's admitted he killed her, it's the circumstances which will determine the ultimate charge, which are in dispute, be it pre-meditated murder, self defence in the belief his home was being invaded, culpable homicide etc.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

He's admitted he killed her, it's the circumstances which will determine the ultimate charge, which are in dispute, be it pre-meditated murder, self defence in the belief his home was being invaded, culpable homicide etc.

I know he killed her, I meant guilty of pre-meditated murder as opposed to culpable homicide.

I'll edit it.

wonderfullife

Candie wrote: »

If it's not proven, its speculation or suspicion. Perez Hilton will never be a credible source of news so I'm not concerned with any crap I read on that site.

I'll wait until I hear the facts as presented before the courts before I decide if its smoke or a smokescreen.

Sure, the guy looks guilty (of pre-meditated murder rather than culpable homicide), in fact I'd go so far as to say everything seems to point to it. That still doesn't mean he actually is though.

Boil this down to a basic level - the National Enquirer, Daily Star, Perez and others are running with this pregnancy story. You can deduce 2 things immediately: 1. all of the above publications are absolute rags , yet 2. All of them are high profile and subject to legal recourse.

If the pregnancy claims are untrue, if the cricket bat story is unfounded, then should Pistorius be cleared of a Schedule 6 murder, either he or Steenkamps family will take the lot of them to court.

So either they are confident in their sources or they are heading for court.

I'm taking all of these un-named source reports with a required pinch of salt, but it's not looking good overall for his defence. We even see the start of the P.R. machine today with this nonsense about a memorial service for Reeva.

wonderfullife

What we do know, in terms of court, is that Oscar Pistorius defence claimed the substance found in the house was not testosterone but a "herbal remedy". That herbal remedy is a sexual stimulant named in court as "testocompasutium coenzyme". A homeopathic remedy.

It would be easy to play join-the-dots - he possessed a sexual stimulant, hypodermic needles - that implies some sort of sexual dysfunction. Then you get reports of her being pregnant. Then you get reports of police being called on the same night for a disturbance. It will all play out over time and no point indulging in speculation, i guess, but if the reports are true then they would go a long way to establishing motive - Pistorius finds out shes pregnant, flips believing it's not his baby etc. Because otherwise the motive seems abstract - all reports state they were happy, her twitter account reflected happiness, her best friends/housemates indicated they were happy.

I suppose at the end of the day this will run and run until it gets to court on June 4th but the speed with which they went for Schedule 6 premeditated leaves only a few possibilites - either complete incompetence by the prosecuting authorities or a lot of evidence waiting to be unleashed.

wonderfullife

Here's an excellent informative article, probably the best i've read:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/02/if_oscar_pistorius_is_telling_the_truth_about_reeva_steenkamp_he_s_a_dangerous.html

Ash.J.Williams

This is what guilty people do...

Pistorius's reputation management firm said he had specifically requested the service "as he remains in deep mourning for the loss of his partner Reeva", whom he says he shot by accident assuming an intruder had entered his home on February 14.
"Oscar has asked for a private service with people who share his loss, including his family members who knew and loved Reeva as one of their own," the management firm said.

robinph

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

This is what guilty people do...

Doesn't matter what he does now, someone will read into it as being proof of guilt. If he didn't do this then people would say it is a sign of guilt as he's showing no remorse, if he does then people still say it's a sign of guilt.

I don't think it's an indication of anything.

The only thing we know for certain is that he killed her and he's an idiot.

BluE-WinG

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

This is what guilty people do...

Not necessarily, It amazes me how people have made their mind up and the trial hasnt even happened.

I'll wait for the hard evidence of the trial and then pass judgement.

seenitall

robinph wrote: »

Doesn't matter what he does now, someone will read into it as being proof of guilt. If he didn't do this then people would say it is a sign of guilt as he's showing no remorse, if he does then people still say it's a sign of guilt.

No. I wouldn't say he was guilty or showing no remorse if he just kept to himself. Because that's what I would do if I hadn't meant to kill my girlfriend.

The one thing I definitely wouldn't do if I killed my girlfriend and was remorseful about it, is to have a memorial service for her in my uncle's house while waiting to be tried for her murder. Unbelievably iffy, inappropriate, deluded.

Not to mention PR-exercisish.

Leave Reeva memorials to her real family to do, not the family of her killer who are, after a two-month relationship which ended with her murder, claiming her as 'their own'. You couldn't make it up.

It turns my stomach.

Seachmall

seenitall wrote: »

No. I wouldn't say he was guilty or showing no remorse if he just kept to himself. Because that's what I would do if I hadn't meant to kill my girlfriend.

The one thing I definitely wouldn't do if I killed my girlfriend and was remorseful about it, is to have a memorial service for her in my uncle's house while waiting to be tried for her murder. Unbelievably iffy, inappropriate, deluded.

Not to mention PR-exercisish.

Leave Reeva memorials to her real family to do, not the family of her killer who are, after a two-month relationship which ended with her murder, claiming her as 'their own'. You couldn't make it up.

It turns my stomach.

I'd hold a memorial service for anyone who I loved, regardless of how they died.

Reading into this as a sign of guilt really is confirmation bias at this stage.