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

seamus

Yeah, tbh, if I had gunned my wife down by accident, I would probably not attend the actual funeral out of respect for her family, but I would be inclined to hold a private memorial for my family.

Although it seems a bit PR-exerciseish, it doesn't look like this was just spat out there by his PR firm. It sounds more like someone asked the PR firm what Pistorious had planned in the way of memorials, and so they responded.

Every news source is quoting the same thing statement from the PR firm, which sounds like the answer to a question.

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

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

I didn't do that.

A sign of a lack of remorse about even accidentally killing her, yes. If he thinks something like this is a good idea vis-a-vis her grieving family, well yes, I'm speechless.

But then again you seem to be on a much better wavelength to be able to understand this person's actions than me. Fair play.

fishy fishy

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.

no comparison to the Birmingham six , sorry. They were completely innocent - this guy is guilty as sin.

Seachmall

seenitall wrote: »

But then again you seem to be on a much better wavelength to be able to understand this person's actions than me. Fair play.

One of the benefits of sitting on the fence until all the evidence is presented is your interpretations of events aren't coloured by initial bias.


You should try it.

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

One of the benefits of sitting on the fence until all the evidence is presented is your interpretations of events aren't coloured by initial bias.


You should try it.

I'm getting a slight sense of deja-vu here.

I don't need evidence that hasn't even been presented in its fullness to form my opinion, thank you very much.

I also had no initial bias to speak of; it's solely on the basis of the completely ridiculous, frustratingly implausible 'Oscar's version' of events that my opinion of both him, and the events has been forming.

So far he is sadly still acting with complete consistency with the conclusions I've drawn about him more than a week ago.

The_Gatsby

wonderfullife wrote: »

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

Just a tad bias then...

seamus

The_Gatsby wrote: »

Just a tad bias then...

Where's the bias in that article? It seems fairly straight down the line to me.

Cienciano

wonderfullife wrote: »

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

It really doesn't make sense (oscars story). When it happened without knowing any facts other than he thought it was a burglar, people were saying "wouldn't you shout or say something first?".
It defies belief that he would just shoot into a room without knowing whos in there.

Ash.J.Williams

You don't have to be the most thoughtful or romantic man in the world to turn to your wife/girlfriend in the bed to say "i think there is someone downstairs, wait here i'lll go check" that is what 99% of men would do..jaysus even if you were in a twin room with one of your mates you'd still at least acknowledge them before you went on a shooting rampage, nobody and i mean NOBODY would blank the bed from their eyes and simply run and shoot at a door, if he genuinely didn't mean it then he should be locked up just to keep him away from other people.

BluE-WinG

seenitall wrote: »

I also had no initial bias to speak of; it's solely on the basis of the completely ridiculous, frustratingly implausible 'Oscar's version' of events that my opinion of both him, and the events has been forming.

You believe his story to be implausible as an outsider to South Africa.

Speaking as an Ex-pat, his story is plausible.

Your opinion is your opinion, its just a shame that you and many others cant see that local conditions do indeed affect the plausibility of a story.

seenitall

BluE-WinG wrote: »

You believe his story to be implausible as an outsider to South Africa.

Speaking as an Ex-pat, his story is plausible.

Your opinion is your opinion, its just a shame that you and many others cant see that local conditions do indeed affect the plausibility of a story.

IMO, the reason I don't believe his story has nothing to do with high crime and paranoid people of South Africa.

I don't believe his story because I don't for a second believe that any man, anywhere, would behave as he says he did under a possible threat of an intruder, while his girlfriend is supposed to be in the room with him.

The trouble with his story for me is that the end result of what happened that night is much more plausibly explained by the version in which the man intended to kill his girlfriend.

wonderfullife

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, tbh, if I had gunned my wife down by accident, I would probably not attend the actual funeral out of respect for her family, but I would be inclined to hold a private memorial for my family.

Although it seems a bit PR-exerciseish, it doesn't look like this was just spat out there by his PR firm. It sounds more like someone asked the PR firm what Pistorious had planned in the way of memorials, and so they responded.

Every news source is quoting the same thing statement from the PR firm, which sounds like the answer to a question.

First of all, according to Reeva Steenkamps father, not one member of the Pistorius family called them since the shooting to express regret/remorse/condolences. I would imagine that would be a good initial step, though probably advised against by the lawyers or PR people.

Which brings us on to this private memorial service. Which was "leaked" to the press and then forced a statement on Pistorius website to confirm the "leak".

Pistorius website is being run and handled right now by Vuma Reputation Management. Slightly ironic that a P.R. firm makes a contrite statement asking for privacy for a "private memorial service" yet thanks to a convenient "leak" it gets worldwide coverage.

Also, lets not forget this is not similar to gunning down your wife by accident and remembering her in your own way, with friends who knew her. Pistorius only met the girl in November 2012 and they were dating a couple of months. Her housemates had only met Pistorius once, he had only been to Reevas house twice ("to pick her up"). Time is no barrier to grief, but a self-serving memorial service?? With a load of people who barely knew her or had never met her attending?

This was a P.R. excercise, full stop. Bottom line you do not employ a Reputation Management company at a time like this for moral support. They are there for damage limitation to the "brand" of Pistorius and to spin anything and everything possible in the best possible way for their client.

Just as we have to remain sceptical over un-named sources, we must be equally cynical over self-serving "leaks" to the press.

pH

Cienciano wrote: »

It really doesn't make sense (oscars story). When it happened without knowing any facts other than he thought it was a burglar, people were saying "wouldn't you shout or say something first?".
It defies belief that he would just shoot into a room without knowing whos in there.

A very special kind of burglar who makes straight for an upstairs toilet and locks himself in - while making enough noise in there that Pistorius knows exactly where he was to let him put 3.

The fact that any sane person gives one iota of credence to this story is extremely disappointing, it just seems that many societies seem to be extremely tolerant towards men who kill their partners - fair enough to Pistorius he's killed her and would rather not spend years in a South African jail and has spun a nonsensical story to "explain" the facts - I get him - I just can't understand the mentality of anyone who when hearing that version of events just doesn't start laughing.

opinion guy

wonderfullife wrote: »

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.

Whilst you are joining dots there do you want to reaise the homeopathic remedies are simply water.

seenitall wrote: »

IMO, the reason I don't believe his story has nothing to do with high crime and paranoid people of South Africa.

I don't believe his story because I don't for a second believe that any man, anywhere, would behave as he says he did under a possible threat of an intruder, while his girlfriend is supposed to be in the room with him.

The trouble with his story for me is that the end result of what happened that night is much more plausibly explained by the version in which the man intended to kill his girlfriend.

Not all men in the world are bound to act according to the limits of your imagination!

wonderfullife wrote: »

This was a P.R. excercise, full stop. Bottom line you do not employ a Reputation Management company at a time like this for moral support. They are there for damage limitation to the "brand" of Pistorius and to spin anything and everything possible in the best possible way for their client.

Just as we have to remain sceptical over un-named sources, we must be equally cynical over self-serving "leaks" to the press.

Are you for real ? Are you seriously trying to argue - 'oh he hired a PR firm he must be guilty'????
Anyone and everyone in his position regardless of guilt would hire a PR firm. It would simply be stupid not to. When you have media hounds chasing you all over you need professional advice on dealing with that - regardless of circumstances.

wonderfullife

opinion guy wrote: »

Whilst you are joining dots there do you want to reaise the homeopathic remedies are simply water.



Not all men in the world are bound to act according to the limits of your imagination!




Are you for real ? Are you seriously trying to argue - 'oh he hired a PR firm he must be guilty'????
Anyone and everyone in his position regardless of guilt would hire a PR firm. It would simply be stupid not to. When you have media hounds chasing you all over you need professional advice on dealing with that - regardless of circumstances.

Have you lost your ability to read?

I am arguing that the self-serving "leak" over the memorial service is more than likely have originated from his PR people he hired in the aftermath of the killing.

Hiring PR has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

wonderfullife

and while we are it, homeopathic remedies are indeed water!! Yet i've never felt the need to inject myself with water, so why the hypodermic needles? The substance named in court is a sexual stimulant and athletes are (quote):

"advised not to take it as it may boost testosterone levels"

It is not on a banned list of substances, but may cause a failed test. Anyway this isn't a WADA anti-doping investigation so he can inject himself with water or anything else he wants.

seenitall

opinion guy wrote: »

Not all men in the world are bound to act according to the limits of your imagination!

... or common sense, or the first instinctive reaction natural to any man who is in bed with his girlfriend... I know, I know, I'm really reaching with my conclusions here.

It's much more probable that he thought a burglar sat down to have a pee and blasted him through a closed door without pausing for a second to think of the consequences IF that was his girlfriend, than that he knew full well who was in there, was beside himself with anger for some reason, and acted accordingly.

Silly me.

AudreyHepburn

I'm a bit shocked at the amount of people who would find Pistorius guilty based on little more than personal opinion or because how he acted is not you personally would act.

Be reasonable.

No-one can truthfully say how they would react to thinking there was an intruder in their home until they are in that position.

Nor can it be said that every man in the world would react in a certain way.

And since when does hiring a PR firm indicate guilt....just the opposite I would have thought.

And as for attending Reeva's memorial....I honestly think he was damned if he did , damned if he didn't.

My own feeling on it is if he is telling the truth and it was a total accident and he really did love her why would he not go?

I for one will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. There really is no firm evidence he planned to or wanted to kill her.

Innocent until proven guilty as they say.

seenitall

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm a bit shocked at the amount of people who would find Pistorius guilty based on little more than personal opinion or because how he acted is not you personally would act.

Be reasonable.

No-one can truthfully say how they would react to thinking there was an intruder in their home until they are in that position.

Nor can it be said that every man in the world would react in a certain way.

And since when does hiring a PR firm indicate guilt....just the opposite I would have thought.

And as for attending Reeva's memorial....I honestly think he was damned if he did , damned if he didn't.

My own feeling on it is if he is telling the truth and it was a total accident and he really did love her why would he not go?

I for one will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. There really is no firm evidence he planned to or wanted to kill her.

Innocent until proven guilty as they say.

I'm sorry if it's not to your liking, but it is precisely my reasoning which is preventing me from swallowing that BS concoction of his.

This man will get his day in court (which is much more than can be said of his victim), so I'm not so much concerned about his status of the innocent until proven guilty, as I am that justice be served at the end of it.

wonderfullife

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm a bit shocked at the amount of people who would find Pistorius guilty based on little more than personal opinion or because how he acted is not you personally would act.

Be reasonable.

No-one can truthfully say how they would react to thinking there was an intruder in their home until they are in that position.

Nor can it be said that every man in the world would react in a certain way.

And since when does hiring a PR firm indicate guilt....just the opposite I would have thought.

And as for attending Reeva's memorial....I honestly think he was damned if he did , damned if he didn't.

My own feeling on it is if he is telling the truth and it was a total accident and he really did love her why would he not go?

I for one will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. There really is no firm evidence he planned to or wanted to kill her.

Innocent until proven guilty as they say.

Are you following this at all???

1. Nobody implied hiring a PR firm = guilt. That is just you and Opinion Guy unable to read properly. I said it's no coincidence the leak came after hiring a PR firm. PR firms and "leaks" go hand in hand. This has ZERO to do with his innocence.

2. He didn't "attend" her memorial service. That was held in Johannasburg. He held his OWN memorial service at his house FOR her. And this was supposed to be a "private" memorial service, which was leaked to the press which gained worldwide press coverage. Not so private.


Everyone is entitled to "benefit of doubt" and presumption of innocence. A lot of us here are forming opinions based on the evidence to date, the probability of his story, the plausability etc and coming to our conclusions. Others are finding there is sufficient doubt that it can't be (yet) proved beyond a reasonable doubt he intended to kill.

But to recap:

His claims:

He lived in constant fear.

He had death threats in past.

He slept on the opposite side of bed to normal that night only.

He went to the balcony in order to get a fan and close already open sliding doors.

He heard a noise. Remembered ladders were left outside the house on that side of the property.

Too afraid to switch on a light, he crawled (walked on stumps) over 40 feet in the dark.

He fired 4 bullets through a door. Didn't check if door was locked.

Returned 40 feet to bed, found she was not in it.

Got a cricket bat, broke the door down.

Called his Complex Manager first, a private hospital 2nd and his brother/lawyer. (Possibly not in that order)


Reasons to doubt his claims:

People in fear for their life do not leave balcony doors open at night. They don't leave ladders up at side of house.

Neither of the dogs outside the side of the house barked. They might have been asleep who knows. Most dogs ive ever had bark like nuts when people walk by but hey...

Reevas night bag, belongings etc were on the side of the bed he claimed to have slept. Bit strange but no biggie, they may have swapped over.

He could navigate from balcony around her side of bed to get his gun and then a further 30 feet to bathroom and shoot 4 bullets through a door in the "pitch black" yet could not see her in bed or ascertain where she was.

He took between 20-80 minutes to phone an ambulance post-shooting.

State claims bullet trajectory were downwards, disproving his whole case if proved.

Of 4 bullets fired into a 16 feet square room, 3 of the 4 hit her. Either he got incredibly lucky or knew where he was aiming.


There are many more reasons not aired in court and aired in court to doubt his case. Such as reports of police called to scene, crushed skull, pregnancy etc which will be aired in time.

Of course none of us, on either side, can prove his guilt. That is up to the State. All we can do is hold opinions based on evidence. For example him saying he lived in fear is contradicted by the evidence of the open balcony doors and ladders left outside.

I believe in his guilt, others are entitled to believe in his innocence and the trial will certainly be interesting. Yet i fear a plea bargain will be struck by June 4th and we'll never know.

seenitall

wonderfullife wrote: »

I believe in his guilt, others are entitled to believe in his innocence and the trial will certainly be interesting. Yet i fear a plea bargain will be struck by June 4th and we'll never know.

Ha, then there goes my "he will get his day in court" assertion.

AudreyHepburn

wonderfullife wrote: »

Are you following this at all???

1. Nobody implied hiring a PR firm = guilt. That is just you and Opinion Guy unable to read properly. I said it's no coincidence the leak came after hiring a PR firm. PR firms and "leaks" go hand in hand. This has ZERO to do with his innocence.

2. He didn't "attend" her memorial service. That was held in Johannasburg. He held his OWN memorial service at his house FOR her. And this was supposed to be a "private" memorial service, which was leaked to the press which gained worldwide press coverage. Not so private.


Everyone is entitled to "benefit of doubt" and presumption of innocence. A lot of us here are forming opinions based on the evidence to date, the probability of his story, the plausability etc and coming to our conclusions. Others are finding there is sufficient doubt that it can't be (yet) proved beyond a reasonable doubt he intended to kill.

But to recap:

His claims:

He lived in constant fear.

He had death threats in past.

He slept on the opposite side of bed to normal that night only.

He went to the balcony in order to get a fan and close already open sliding doors.

He heard a noise. Remembered ladders were left outside the house on that side of the property.

Too afraid to switch on a light, he crawled (walked on stumps) over 40 feet in the dark.

He fired 4 bullets through a door. Didn't check if door was locked.

Returned 40 feet to bed, found she was not in it.

Got a cricket bat, broke the door down.

Called his Complex Manager first, a private hospital 2nd and his brother/lawyer. (Possibly not in that order)


Reasons to doubt his claims:

People in fear for their life do not leave balcony doors open at night. They don't leave ladders up at side of house.

Neither of the dogs outside the side of the house barked. They might have been asleep who knows. Most dogs ive ever had bark like nuts when people walk by but hey...

Reevas night bag, belongings etc were on the side of the bed he claimed to have slept. Bit strange but no biggie, they may have swapped over.

He could navigate from balcony around her side of bed to get his gun and then a further 30 feet to bathroom and shoot 4 bullets through a door in the "pitch black" yet could not see her in bed or ascertain where she was.

He took between 20-80 minutes to phone an ambulance post-shooting.

State claims bullet trajectory were downwards, disproving his whole case if proved.

Of 4 bullets fired into a 16 feet square room, 3 of the 4 hit her. Either he got incredibly lucky or knew where he was aiming.


There are many more reasons not aired in court and aired in court to doubt his case. Such as reports of police called to scene, crushed skull, pregnancy etc which will be aired in time.

Of course none of us, on either side, can prove his guilt. That is up to the State. All we can do is hold opinions based on evidence. For example him saying he lived in fear is contradicted by the evidence of the open balcony doors and ladders left outside.

I believe in his guilt, others are entitled to believe in his innocence and the trial will certainly be interesting. Yet i fear a plea bargain will be struck by June 4th and we'll never know.

Ok I got the memorial bit mixed up but I still don't see hows its relevant to his guilt or innocence. Ditto which side of the bed her things were on or which side he chose to sleep on.

When or where was this pregnancy mentioned? I don't remember anything?

And I thought were no head injuries or defensive wounds evident, which surely there would have been had he beat her.

Dogs, like people, don't always act how we think they should.

He may well have know exactly where he was shooting, but that doesn't mean he know.

You are entitled to your arguments of course....its just that most of those arguments can be easily turned on their heads.

Again innocent until proven otherwise.

AudreyHepburn

seenitall wrote: »

I'm sorry if it's not to your liking, but it is precisely my reasoning which is preventing me from swallowing that BS concoction of his.

This man will get his day in court (which is much more than can be said of his victim), so I'm not so much concerned about his status of the innocent until proven guilty, as I am that justice be served at the end of it.

I hope justice is done either way too.

I just don't see pronouncing him guilty based on what side of the bed he slept in or how you would react in the same situation or because he had a memorial for his dead girlfriend etc as being reasonable.

opinion guy

wonderfullife wrote: »

and while we are it, homeopathic remedies are indeed water!! Yet i've never felt the need to inject myself with water, so why the hypodermic needles? The substance named in court is a sexual stimulant and athletes are (quote):

"advised not to take it as it may boost testosterone levels"

It is not on a banned list of substances, but may cause a failed test. Anyway this isn't a WADA anti-doping investigation so he can inject himself with water or anything else he wants.

Well yes he can inject himself with whatever he wants - but you made the case the steroids made him crazy. Kinda important then that they actually were steroids.......and not water ???? Or is internal consistency of your own arugment not important to you ?

opinion guy

wonderfullife wrote: »

and while we are it, homeopathic remedies are indeed water!! Yet i've never felt the need to inject myself with water, so why the hypodermic needles? The substance named in court is a sexual stimulant and athletes are (quote):

"advised not to take it as it may boost testosterone levels"

It is not on a banned list of substances, but may cause a failed test. Anyway this isn't a WADA anti-doping investigation so he can inject himself with water or anything else he wants.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Are you following this at all???

1. Nobody implied hiring a PR firm = guilt. That is just you and Opinion Guy unable to read properly. I said it's no coincidence the leak came after hiring a PR firm. PR firms and "leaks" go hand in hand. This has ZERO to do with his innocence.

2. He didn't "attend" her memorial service. That was held in Johannasburg. He held his OWN memorial service at his house FOR her. And this was supposed to be a "private" memorial service, which was leaked to the press which gained worldwide press coverage. Not so private.


Everyone is entitled to "benefit of doubt" and presumption of innocence. A lot of us here are forming opinions based on the evidence to date, the probability of his story, the plausability etc and coming to our conclusions. Others are finding there is sufficient doubt that it can't be (yet) proved beyond a reasonable doubt he intended to kill.

But to recap:

His claims:

He lived in constant fear.

He had death threats in past.

He slept on the opposite side of bed to normal that night only.

He went to the balcony in order to get a fan and close already open sliding doors.

He heard a noise. Remembered ladders were left outside the house on that side of the property.

Too afraid to switch on a light, he crawled (walked on stumps) over 40 feet in the dark.

He fired 4 bullets through a door. Didn't check if door was locked.

Returned 40 feet to bed, found she was not in it.

Got a cricket bat, broke the door down.

Called his Complex Manager first, a private hospital 2nd and his brother/lawyer. (Possibly not in that order)


Reasons to doubt his claims:

People in fear for their life do not leave balcony doors open at night. They don't leave ladders up at side of house.

Neither of the dogs outside the side of the house barked. They might have been asleep who knows. Most dogs ive ever had bark like nuts when people walk by but hey...

Reevas night bag, belongings etc were on the side of the bed he claimed to have slept. Bit strange but no biggie, they may have swapped over.

He could navigate from balcony around her side of bed to get his gun and then a further 30 feet to bathroom and shoot 4 bullets through a door in the "pitch black" yet could not see her in bed or ascertain where she was.

He took between 20-80 minutes to phone an ambulance post-shooting.

State claims bullet trajectory were downwards, disproving his whole case if proved.

Of 4 bullets fired into a 16 feet square room, 3 of the 4 hit her. Either he got incredibly lucky or knew where he was aiming.


There are many more reasons not aired in court and aired in court to doubt his case. Such as reports of police called to scene, crushed skull, pregnancy etc which will be aired in time.

Of course none of us, on either side, can prove his guilt. That is up to the State. All we can do is hold opinions based on evidence. For example him saying he lived in fear is contradicted by the evidence of the open balcony doors and ladders left outside.

I believe in his guilt, others are entitled to believe in his innocence and the trial will certainly be interesting. Yet i fear a plea bargain will be struck by June 4th and we'll never know.

Oh silly us. We went and forgot that people always behave reasonably and how you would expect them to from half a world away in all situations.:rolleyes:

Duggys Housemate

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I hope justice is done either way too.

I just don't see pronouncing him guilty based on what side of the bed he slept in or how you would react in the same situation or because he had a memorial for his dead girlfriend etc as being reasonable.

Since we all know he shot her the trial can only be based on his excuses. Shooting an intruder in the bathroom makes no sense.

He hears a noise in the bathroom - a difficult room to break into in normal times.

1) why not assume it was her? No alarm in his very protected house had gone off.
2) when he shouted for her why not wait for her to answer?
3) why didn't she answer?
4) when did he get the gun? He couldn't have assumed an intruder when he randomly got up?
5) in that time he went for the gun why didn't she call out? Or he notice she wasn't in bed?
6) did he wear his prosthetics or not? If so is that usual when going to the bathroom or does it indicate he was up for a while?

There's probably more. She can't defend herself, we can't just take his story.

Duggys Housemate

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh silly us. We went and forgot that people always behave reasonably and how you would expect them to from half a world away in all situations.:rolleyes:

What does distance have to do with anything? Either the intruder story holds water, or it doesn't. It doesn't.

wonderfullife

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok I got the memorial bit mixed up but I still don't see hows its relevant to his guilt or innocence. Ditto which side of the bed her things were on or which side he chose to sleep on.

When or where was this pregnancy mentioned? I don't remember anything?

And I thought were no head injuries or defensive wounds evident, which surely there would have been had he beat her.

Dogs, like people, don't always act how we think they should.

He may well have know exactly where he was shooting, but that doesn't mean he know.

You are entitled to your arguments of course....its just that most of those arguments can be easily turned on their heads.

Again innocent until proven otherwise.

His gun holster is under "her side of the bed". If she slept on the side of the bed her belongings were, it would make his already implausible tale further implausible. As he would have had to reach under the bed on her side to get the gun.

I don't personally understand why someone would leave their night-bag and stuff on the opposite side of the bed. Any girlfriend i've ever had has always left her stuff on her side of bed.

wonderfullife

opinion guy wrote: »

Well yes he can inject himself with whatever he wants - but you made the case the steroids made him crazy. Kinda important then that they actually were steroids.......and not water ???? Or is internal consistency of your own arugment not important to you ?

Link one post when i made any case for steroids? I never once on this whole thread stated any such nonsense. You're losing the plot i'm afraid.

The_Gatsby

seamus wrote: »

Where's the bias in that article? It seems fairly straight down the line to me.

Hmm, things like...

Pause right there

To appreciate the perversity of this story

At this point, apparently, Pistorius started to think rationally

Congratulations, Mr. Pistorius. You've raised, in Oscar, a fine hunter. An animal, in fact.

From reading the article you can clearly see what the authors opinion is.

wonderfullife

I'm no Picasso but i hope this further outlines the stupidity of his account. And no, people are not convicted of premeditated murder based on stupidity but as a rule of thumb if a story seems preposterous, it probably is. We'll see what the courts make of it at trial.

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

What does distance have to do with anything? Either the intruder story holds water, or it doesn't. It doesn't.

Read the thread numerous people who have lived in SA saying how reality and attitudes are different there and find the story believeable in that context. Distance isn't an issue per se - but culture is.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Since we all know he shot her the trial can only be based on his excuses.

Or....and I know this is apparently a radical crazy idea but how about deciding based on objective evidence - ballistics, autopsy etc ?

wonderfullife wrote: »

Link one post when i made any case for steroids? I never once on this whole thread stated any such nonsense. You're losing the plot i'm afraid.

You'll have to forgive me - its rather hard to keep track of peoples imaginary scenarios - I was confused by your latest theory about sexual dysfunction - 1-/1- for originality by the way:

wonderfullife wrote: »

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.

Duggys Housemate

opinion guy wrote:

Or....and I know this is apparently a radical crazy idea but how about deciding based on objective evidence - ballistics, autopsy

You know the bit where I said the shooting is not in dispute ( not even by his defence). Read that again. Possibly slower.

This case does not depend on forensics or an autospy for the simple reason that nobody is disputing who shot her, with what she was shot, nor how she died. So it depends on the credibility of his story.

wonderfullife

opinion guy wrote: »

Read the thread numerous people who have lived in SA saying how reality and attitudes are different there and find the story believeable in that context. Distance isn't an issue per se - but culture is.




Or....and I know this is apparently a radical crazy idea but how about deciding based on objective evidence - ballistics, autopsy etc ?



You'll have to forgive me - its rather hard to keep track of peoples imaginary scenarios - I was confused by your latest theory about sexual dysfunction - 1-/1- for originality by the way:

Theories are fine, whether it's as fanciful as believing the affadavit he submitted or speculating over other potential scenarios.

But there's no point misquoting people or suggesting steroid fuelled rage when nobody suggested that (on here), least of all me!!

I don't buy his story, you do. Or you believe it plants sufficient doubt to convict on premeditated murder.

Ballistics, forensics and hard evidence will be the ultimate in whether he's acquitted or not.

wonderfullife

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You know the bit where I said the shooting is not in dispute ( not even by his defence). Read that again. Possibly slower.

This case does not depend on forensics for the simple reason that nobody is disputing who shot her, with what she was shot, nor how she died. So it depends on the credibility of his story.

i agree to an extent, however ballistics and forensics should be able to prove the height and distance he fired his gun from. If that height and distance is a downward trajectory then everything else that comes out of Pistorius mouth is moot. His whole defence is based on the premise he shot from on his stumps.

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You know the bit where I said the shooting is not in dispute ( not even by his defence). Read that again. Possibly slower.

This case does not depend on forensics or an autospy for the simple reason that nobody is disputing who shot her, with what she was shot, nor how she died. So it depends on the credibility of his story.

wonderfullofe answered that for me! Forensices are key to which version of events is believable - short of that its all just words on either side

wonderfullife wrote: »

But there's no point misquoting people or suggesting steroid fuelled rage when nobody suggested that (on here), least of all me!!

Apparently I was too subtle - I made a mistake and confused your conjecture about sexual dysfunction with other peoples conjecture about steroid rage.

B.A._Baracus

My two cents...

He picked up the gun and shot his girlfriend. Then created some bull**** story about how he thought it was a robber. Guilty.

Cienciano

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Since we all know he shot her the trial can only be based on his excuses. Shooting an intruder in the bathroom makes no sense.

He hears a noise in the bathroom - a difficult room to break into in normal times.

1) why not assume it was her? No alarm in his very protected house had gone off.
2) when he shouted for her why not wait for her to answer?
3) why didn't she answer?
4) when did he get the gun? He couldn't have assumed an intruder when he randomly got up?
5) in that time he went for the gun why didn't she call out? Or he notice she wasn't in bed?
6) did he wear his prosthetics or not? If so is that usual when going to the bathroom or does it indicate he was up for a while?

There's probably more. She can't defend herself, we can't just take his story.

The bits in bold just don't make sense. Imagine your partner that has guns in the room and he's shouting and panicked. You decided to stay silent inside the locked bathroom when he calls you. I just don't believe that.
Never mind the fact that he walked around the room twice and never even noticed she wasn't in the bed. If he's telling the truth, the guy a complete idiot at the point of being dangerously stupid.

seenitall

wonderfullife wrote: »

i agree to an extent, however ballistics and forensics should be able to prove the height and distance he fired his gun from. If that height and distance is a downward trajectory then everything else that comes out of Pistorius mouth is moot. His whole defence is based on the premise he shot from on his stumps.

I don't get this bit. Why is it so relevant? He may have just as well shot with the intention to kill his girlfriend shooting from his stumps, as he would have with his legs on.

How does legs on/no legs on relate with the intention/no intention to kill that specific person?

In other words, if they find out he is lying about this detail, they still can't prove that he actually meant to shoot Riva. All they can prove is that he had his legs on, for which he can then fall in a heap and say oh it's all very fuzzy in my memory, I may have had them on, I don't really remember...

Actually, thinking on it, almost every little detail of his story could be disproven without actually proving that he shot with the intention to kill Reeva specifically.

If the judge will believe that he called out, that she didn't answer and that he was so panicked that he shot to kill a person unknown through a closed door without ascertaining that his girlfriend is safe, then that's that, Oscar wins his case.

wonderfullife

Cienciano wrote: »

The bits in bold just don't make sense. Imagine your partner that has guns in the room and he's shouting and panicked. You decided to stay silent inside the locked bathroom when he calls you. I just don't believe that.
Never mind the fact that he walked around the room twice and never even noticed she wasn't in the bed. If he's telling the truth, the guy a complete idiot at the point of being dangerously stupid.

+1

But little of his version makes sense. I mean - he hears noises in the bathroom which is 40 feet away from the balcony, yet the hallway to the stairs landing is 15 feet from the balcony. Why would you approach a noise, believing it to be an intruder, slowly on stumps when the effective EXIT door is twice as close!!

Then again his whole tale is riddled with stupidity. Why sleep with a balcony door open at the front of the property if you "live in fear"? Why leave ladders at bathroom windows?!

Why not turn on lights when you hear a noise? Why not warn your partner? Why or how can you reach under a bed for a gun and not put your hand on the bed to shake your partner and say there's a noise? Oscar Pistorius is 6'1 with a reach of 37 inches (3 feet) he can reach across the bed handy!!

Why not ask who is in the toilet? Why not check if the door is locked? why shoot through the door 4 times? why not once (or 6 times for that matter)?

Then we're supposed to believe he shot her 3 times and she didn't scream or make a sound upon being shot? And he only "realised" when he got back to the bedroom? For me, of all his account is riddled with improbability that is the worst one - she makes not a peep after being shot 3 times and it takes him an 80 feet round trip back to the bed to discover it's empty!!

Why did he turn on the lights then? I mean, if he was in fear and heard no noise after shooting the door up, then who is to say the intruder was not still in there!! Why wait so long before calling an ambulance? Why ring your lawyer to get there inside 45 mins (before police)?

None of it makes sense. What makes more sense is he knew who/why/where he was shooting at, moved with amazing speed and rationality to preserve his self-interests after killing her. Remarkable how someone living in such fear sleeps with balcony doors open, ladders up, panics at the merest noise in a bathroom yet shows stunning calmness after shooting someone.

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

I don't get this bit. Why is it so relevant? He may have just as well shot with the intention to kill his girlfriend shooting from his stumps, as he would have with his legs on.

How does legs on/no legs on relate with the intention/no intention to kill that specific person?

In other words, if they find out he is lying about this detail, they still can't prove that he actually meant to shoot Riva. All they can prove is that he had his legs on, for which he can then fall in a heap and say oh it's all very fuzzy in my memory, I may have had them on, I don't really remember...

Actually, thinking on it, almost every little detail of his story could be disproven without actually proving that he shot with the intention to kill Reeva specifically.

If the judge will believe that he called out, that she didn't answer and that he was so panicked that he shot to kill a person unknown through a closed door without ascertaining that his girlfriend is safe, then that's that, Oscar wins his case.

Oscars version =

Hears a noise. goes from balcony, to bed, gets gun, goes to bathroom, shoots up the door in the dark.

Without his prosthetic legs on.

If it can be shown he shot from a height consistent with his legs being ON, then everything else he says falls to pieces. If it can be shown he is lying about having his legs on, then his whole story is rendered a lie.

seenitall

wonderfullife wrote: »

If it can be shown he is lying about having his legs on, then his whole story is rendered a lie.

How do you reckon that?

If they can prove he's lying about one thing, they (judge?) will jump to a conclusion he is lying about everything else, is that what you're saying?

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

How do you reckon that?

If they can prove he's lying about one thing, they (judge?) will jump to a conclusion he is lying about everything else, is that what you're saying?

well his story is he was asleep, woke up, and this all kicked off. If the legs were ON and he shot from a height downwards into the door, then it proves he was a) not asleep and b) lying.

Given his whole defence is based on the fact he lived in fear and panicked upon hearing a noise, and felt vulnerable as a disabled person on stumps, if it can be shown his legs were on, then his defence falls apart. Literally falls apart and no Judge in the world can acquit him.

But my own personal theory is he knows all of this - and that he told his lawyers to do anything to get him out of jail right now. So he signs this affadavit in the knowledge/hope a plea bargain can be reached with Prosecutors. Very common in SA, where a hefty fine and suspended sentence can be reached. Even in seemingly watertight cases.

Bottom line, if those bullets are a downward trajectory he's full of sh1t and anything else he says would be treated as such.

seenitall

But my point is (and sorry to be harping on this) if he is proven to be lying about the legs, can't he just go "oh sorry, I was so devastated by losing Reeva that I forgot I actually did put them on when getting out of bed" (or something to that effect) and get away with it?

I mean, it's just as plausible a thing for him to say as any other BS he's said so far. Why would he be believed that kind of thing any less than the preposterous story about imagining an intruder, etc?

If the judgment is at a discretion of a judge, anything that the judge believes, goes, right?

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

But my point is (and sorry to be harping on this) if he is proven to be lying about the legs, can't he just go "oh sorry, I was so devastated by losing Reeva that I forgot I actually did put them on when getting out of bed" (or something to that effect) and get away with it?

I mean, it's just as plausible a thing for him to say as any other BS he's said so far. Why would he be believed that kind of thing any less than the preposterous story about imagining an intruder, etc?

If the judgment is at a discretion of a judge, anything that the judge believes, goes, right?

For the purposes of this trial, if he says he "forgot" his legs were on, then he may as well say "i forgot she was even in the house at the time"!! It completely shatters his defence to pieces.

When someone hands in a sworn affadavit a week after killing his girlfriend, he's had a week to remember what happened and his version of events. To go back on that at trial would be the simplest, quickest Guilty verdict ever reached.

For his defence to succeed, those bullets had to come at an upward trajectory. Anything else and his goose is cooked.

If, however, the bullets were fired at an upward trajectory, then it goes a long way to establishing reasonable doubt and he'll be halfway home to being acquitted.

seenitall

Oh, don't get me wrong, there is not a doubt in my mind that the trajectory will be found to be upward.

But then, I don't for a second believe that he didn't mean to kill her, whether his legs were on, off, or anywhere in between.

I still don't get how a defence can offer such a fairy tale as is his story and be taken seriously, but fall down on what, to my lay person's mind, is not a very significant detail in the whole scheme of things.

But thank you for the explanation.

TwoBirds

seenitall wrote: »

But my point is (and sorry to be harping on this) if he is proven to be lying about the legs, can't he just go "oh sorry, I was so devastated by losing Reeva that I forgot I actually did put them on when getting out of bed" (or something to that effect) and get away with it?

I mean, it's just as plausible a thing for him to say as any other BS he's said so far. Why would he be believed that kind of thing any less than the preposterous story about imagining an intruder, etc?

If the judgment is at a discretion of a judge, anything that the judge believes, goes, right?

Just to add to wonderfullife's response... The prosecution are pushing for premeditated murder. If the ballistics show that he was indeed wearing his legs when he shot Reeva, they probably have a stronger case for premeditation considering the extra few moments that it would have taken him to put on his legs (and thus to consider the course of action he was about to take).

He claims they were asleep in bed so to shoot from his height in prosthetics just invalidates his story and gives credence to the prosecution's case which will likely suggest that they were having an argument (which in turn would suggest that they were not in bed and he was wearing prosthetics).

seenitall

TwoBirds wrote: »

Just to add to wonderfullife's response... The prosecution are pushing for premeditated murder. If the ballistics show that he was indeed wearing his legs when he shot Reeva, they probably have a stronger case for premeditation considering the extra few moments that it would have taken him to put on his legs (and thus to consider the course of action he was about to take).

He claims they were asleep in bed so to shoot from his height in prosthetics just invalidates his story and gives credence to the prosecution's case which will likely suggest that they were having an argument (which in turn would suggest that they were not in bed and he was wearing prosthetics).

Credence isn't evidence. He might have put them on when getting out of bed and "forgot" about it. Nothing in what you say points indisputably that he meant to kill Reeva.

I would have thought this type of stuff is merely circumstancial and therefore nothing to hang the entire case on, on either side.

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

Oh, don't get me wrong, there is not a doubt in my mind that the trajectory will be found to be upward.

But then, I don't for a second believe that he didn't mean to kill her, whether his legs were on, off, or anywhere in between.

I still don't get how a defence can offer such a fairy tale as is his story and be taken seriously, but fall down on what, to my lay person's mind, is not a very significant detail in the whole scheme of things.

But thank you for the explanation.

Well imagine a scenario where you see someone in your back garden. You shoot them 4 times in the dark. You tell police it was dark you were up in bed, you were startled and scared and shot out the bedroom window. Then you realised your wife went out the back for fresh air. Let's suppose the ballistics showed that the trajectory of the bullets was flat, not downward, meaning it was impossible for the events to have happened as you claim, and you must have been shooting out the kitchen window downstairs.

You then change your story at trial to "damn sh1t you know what i was really confused i was actually in the kitchen now that i think about it!!"

Guilty my friend

TwoBirds

seenitall wrote: »

I still don't get how a defence can offer such a fairy tale as is his story and be taken seriously, but fall down on what, to my lay person's mind, is not a very significant detail in the whole scheme of things.

Because his story is improbable but not factually impossible.
I'm no legal eaglet so I'm open to correction on this but for argument's sake, let's say there's no such thing as ballistics or forensics and the prosecution are relying on circumstantial evidence alone. Considering there was (apparently) no evidence that their relationship was in trouble or that they were prone to fighting, isn't his story plausible enough to plant reasonable doubt to acquit?
Personally, I would think it is (again, not an expert), so I imagine that the verdict will depend on cold, hard forensics - unless they reach a plea bargain, of course.