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

seenitall

wonderfullife wrote: »

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

In all fairness, the above person didn't have their wife supposedly sleeping in the room with them but not really, but in all their anguish they forgot to check she wasn't the person in the garden/she didn't respond when they called out, etc, etc.

Sorry, for myself I still don't see how one set of his particular BS is much different from the other, but that's fine; you seem to know what you're talking about as regards the legal process, so I'll leave it at that.

seenitall

TwoBirds wrote: »

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.

Well, yes, that's about the size of it.

To my mind, his story is nowhere near plausible enough for acquittal of pre-meditation.

The pre-meditation charge is miles and miles more plausible than his story, IMO.

But I've no proof that he meant to kill her, and if the prosecution doesn't come up with proof that he meant to kill her (which I think they are unlikely to, as beyond judging on the likelihood of someone's story being true, it is impossible to prove what went on in someone's mind), fcuk my opinion.

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

In all fairness, the above person didn't have their wife supposedly sleeping in the room with them but not really, but in all their anguish they forgot to check she wasn't the person in the garden/she didn't respond when they called out, etc, etc.

Sorry, for myself I still don't see how one set of his particular BS is much different from the other, but that's fine; you seem to know what you're talking about as regards the legal process, so I'll leave it at that.

If you build your whole defence on a matter that has a yes/no answer, then it undermines everything else you say if it's proved false. In this case, ballistics can easily provide a definitive answer. If his legs were on and he shot through the door 4 times, the bullets come in at a downward trajectory. If his legs were off, they come in upwards.

His whole defence is based on the fact his legs were off and he felt vulnerable. Show that to be a lie and anything else he says falls apart.

It's basically this simple - if they prove his legs were on, he's a liar, a cold calculating murderer and deserves life in prison. If his legs were off, he's a stupid reckless idiot. It's vital because people don't deserve life in prison for being an absolute moron with the brain cells of a turnip.

My prediction is this: Mid-April ish his defence will reach a plea bargain with prosecutors. Culpable homicide, a massive fine & compensation payout, 5-year suspended sentence. Pistorius will maintain it was an accident and move on and there will be a lifelong sense of injustice. His fans will defend him still as a plea bargain is not an admission of guilt, he will continue with his athletics career.

For me, plea bargain in this case = I knew she was behind that door.

But, in truth, it'll be spun all sorts of ways - Couldn't face dragging Steenkamps family through the evidence, couldn't face hearing about that night again etc etc. More bullsh1t. If this case reaches trial June 4th i'll eat my hat.

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

Well, yes, that's about the size of it.

To my mind, his story is nowhere near plausible enough for acquittal of pre-meditation.

The pre-meditation charge is miles and miles more plausible than his story, IMO.

But I've no proof that he meant to kill her, and if the prosecution doesn't come up with proof that he meant to kill her (which I think they are unlikely to, as beyond judging on the likelihood of someone's story being true, it is impossible to prove what went on in someone's mind), fcuk my opinion.

Just on a technical issue here - the Prosecution don't need to prove he meant to kill her. They need to prove he knew she was behind that door. As the very act of firing 4 bullets into that door, knowing she was behind it, is enough to convict of premeditated murder as the intention is to cause harm. I.e. he may well have just wanted to shoot up the door in a fit of rage, and not thought "i'll kill her", but those are the very same things legally.

seenitall

wonderfullife wrote: »

It's basically this simple - if they prove his legs were on, he's a liar, a cold calculating murderer and deserves life in prison. If his legs were off, he's a stupid reckless idiot. It's vital because people don't deserve life in prison for being an absolute moron with the brain cells of a turnip.

Nope, still don't see it as being that simple, at all, and it kind of makes me angry that stuff can be simplified to that extent for the courtroom, but when someone spins a story that would make Walter Mitty blush, it's all hunky dory, no problemo, run with it, we'll never question it beyond the upwards trajectory/light on/what have you.

TwoBirds

wonderfullife wrote: »

My prediction is this: Mid-April ish his defence will reach a plea bargain with prosecutors. Culpable homicide, a massive fine & compensation payout, 5-year suspended sentence. Pistorius will maintain it was an accident and move on and there will be a lifelong sense of injustice. His fans will defend him still as a plea bargain is not an admission of guilt, he will continue with his athletics career.

For me, plea bargain in this case = I knew she was behind that door.

But, in truth, it'll be spun all sorts of ways - Couldn't face dragging Steenkamps family through the evidence, couldn't face hearing about that night again etc etc. More bullsh1t. If this case reaches trial June 4th i'll eat my hat.

I don't want to take away from the fact that a girl is dead, but on a side note, I am curious about Pistorius' future career prospects if he does avoid prison. Thinking about the rapturous reception he got at both the Olympics and the Paralympics, would he even want to subject himself to the kind of abuse he could get from crowds after this debacle? What about sponsorship, etc. Surely his reputation is forever tarnished, regardless of whether he is found guilty.

seenitall

wonderfullife wrote: »

If you build your whole defence on a matter that has a yes/no answer, then it undermines everything else you say if it's proved false. In this case, ballistics can easily provide a definitive answer. If his legs were on and he shot through the door 4 times, the bullets come in at a downward trajectory. If his legs were off, they come in upwards.

His whole defence is based on the fact his legs were off and he felt vulnerable. Show that to be a lie and anything else he says falls apart.

It's basically this simple - if they prove his legs were on, he's a liar, a cold calculating murderer and deserves life in prison. If his legs were off, he's a stupid reckless idiot. It's vital because people don't deserve life in prison for being an absolute moron with the brain cells of a turnip.

Oh, one more thing I wanted to ask you about this, wonderfullife.

What if the trajectory IS upward (and all other things being equal, with his story, naturally, staying the same)? (I think I've gathered you don't believe it is, but for argument's sake )

What would YOU think then? Guilty or not guilty?

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

Nope, still don't see it as being that simple, at all, and it kind of makes me angry that stuff can be simplified to that extent for the courtroom, but when someone spins a story that would make Walter Mitty blush, it's all hunky dory, no problemo, run with it, we'll never question it beyond the upwards projectory/light on/what have you.

His Walter Mitty story (i agree by the way) still contains so much subjectivity in it. There were 2 people present in the house at time of shooting, 1 is dead. The other is telling a version of events. In his version of events: However unlikely, improbable, implausible and, frankly, stupid his actions were - all of which can make sense. People do stupid stuff in a state of panic. If he truly freaked at a slight noise in bathroom, rushed for his gun, rushed TOWARDS the danger instead of away, and shot up the door, then it just makes him an absolute donkey. Not a murderer.

So we need some objective evidence. A third party whose very existence speaks on behalf of Reeva. In this case, it is the bullet holes on the door. If they are coming in downwards, then Pistorius is a liar (and murderer). If they are coming in upwards, then it's more than possible he's just another idiot with access to a gun.

TwoBirds wrote: »

I don't want to take away from the fact that a girl is dead, but on a side note, I am curious about Pistorius' future career prospects if he does avoid prison. Thinking about the rapturous reception he got at both the Olympics and the Paralympics, would he even want to subject himself to the kind of abuse he could get from crowds after this debacle? What about sponsorship, etc. Surely his reputation is forever tarnished, regardless of whether he is found guilty.

He needs to do something as any fortune he has amassed will be butchered in a civil court (compensation). Assuming he gets past this, you'll find plenty wanting him at athletics events - they'll be queueing up to have him back. The crowds, publicity, the works. People want to make money, promoters etc

As far as sponsorship goes, he's pretty much toast. The likes of Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Michael Vick all survived nasty public episodes and recovered their sponsorships (infedelity, rape claims and dog fighting respectively) - but this is a dead body and either way he has blood on his hands. He's toast regarding sponsorship.

Book deals, movie deals, athletics income, all lay ahead of him if/when he gets off with this.

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

Oh, one more thing I wanted to ask you about this, wonderfullife.

What if the trajectory IS upward (and all other things being equal, with his story, naturally, staying the same)? (I think I've gathered you don't believe it is, but for argument's sake )

What would YOU think then? Guilty or not guilty?

If it is upwards, then he was on his stumps, then i would have to give the rest of his evidence more credence. His version of events would have a very solid foundation and all the improbability in his evidence can be chalked down to adrenaline, panic, stupidity.

In short, if it's upwards, then i think he's another reckless moron with a gun and he'll have to live with his conscience knowing he took the life of a girl he loved and ruined her family's life forever. But, as i said before, being a brain-dead idiot is not punishable by life in prison.

As you've gathered, i'm of the same opinion as you. To my mind, his story is so riddled with things that any normal person would NOT do..... but the courts (and I) would need some objective evidence to be certain of that. The ballistics report speaks for Reeva. Otherwise it's just my opinion that he's guilty as sin.

seenitall

wonderfullife wrote: »

There were 2 people present in the house at time of shooting, 1 is dead. The other is telling a version of events. In his version of events: However unlikely, improbable, implausible and, frankly, stupid his actions were - all of which can make sense. People do stupid stuff in a state of panic. If he truly freaked at a slight noise in bathroom, rushed for his gun, rushed TOWARDS the danger instead of away, and shot up the door, then it just makes him an absolute donkey. Not a murderer.

So we need some objective evidence. A third party whose very existence speaks on behalf of Reeva. In this case, it is the bullet holes on the door. If they are coming in downwards, then Pistorius is a liar (and murderer). If they are coming in upwards, then it's more than possible he's just another idiot with access to a gun.

Nope, I don't agree with this, because I simply don't believe anyone could be a donkey to that extent. Therefore, way more implausible than the murderer version.

We need some objective evidence, but we don't always get it; which is why some murderers walk free.

In this case, the bullet holes are no proof that he wished/didn't wish to kill his girlfriend. They are proof that he was lying about his legs, and that's it. (I know that the court, as you explained, will see it differently, I'm just pointing to the absurdity of the physical evidence when taken at its face value, without reading stuff into it - as it surely should be??)

seenitall

wonderfullife wrote: »

As you've gathered, i'm of the same opinion as you.

No, you're not.

My opinion is pre-meditated murder even if the trajectory is upward.

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

Nope, I don't agree with this, because I simply don't believe anyone could be a donkey to that extent. Therefore, way more implausible than the murderer version.

We need some objective evidence, but we don't always get it; which is why some murderers walk free.

In this case, the bullet holes are no proof that he wished/didn't wish to kill his girlfriend. They are proof that he was lying about his legs, and that's it. (I know that the court, as you explained, will see it differently, I'm just pointing to the absurdity of the physical evidence when taken at its face value, without reading stuff into it - as it surely should be??)

The reason objective evidence and ballistics is so crucial here is the door itself. If he shot at her 4 times in the bedroom, with no door in between, then the circumstantial evidence alone may be enough to convict. He could hardly pull the "i heard a noise, went to get my gun etc" story out of the air, as his gun was under the bed and the noise originated from the bedroom itself.

Fact is, he shot 4 bullets through a door. Reeva is not alive and can't testify they were having an argument and she hid in the toilet. The only objective evidence that can speak on her behalf is the ballistics. If he shot downwards his whole story is a lie. You then couple that BIG lie with all the circumstantial evidence (reports of loud arguments, him leaving doors open at night despite living in fear, etc) and you reach one conclusion - he knew she was behind that door.

Whether he intended to kill her can never be proved. Even if it is proved he knew she was behind the door, you can never "prove" he meant to kill her. What went on in his head only he will know. He may have shot the door up in a fit of rage while shouting get the F out of my toilet. Who knows. But what we do know is this - if he knew she was behind that door he's guilty of premeditated murder, as firing 4 bullets through it was likely to injure or kill.

If you stab someone in the stomach 3 times and they die, you can't argue you just meant to hurt them. If they die from the wounds it's murder. Similar deal here - you fire 4 shots through a door into a small room, don't matter if you "meant" to shoot her in the ankle or scare her, it's murder.

wonderfullife

seenitall wrote: »

No, you're not.

My opinion is pre-meditated murder even if the trajectory is upward.

well, yes, then you're right we don't fully agree

Upward trajectory and his story holds weight. If his story holds weight it creates reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt = acquit. If his core assertion is proved true, we have little reason to doubt everything else he has asserted. If his core assertion is proved to be a lie, we have little reason to believe another word he says.

Gosub

I know plea bargaining is common in SA. But if (I know, big if) the prosecution have irrefutable evidence to convict, like proof of previous fighting that night, cricket bat forensics, etc. they might just reject any bargains.

If Pistorius is banking everything on getting off by plea bargaining, he needs to be sure that the prosecution can't nail him cold. Can he be so certain?

TwoBirds

Gosub wrote: »

I know plea bargaining is common in SA. But if (I know, big if) the prosecution have irrefutable evidence to convict, like proof of previous fighting that night, cricket bat forensics, etc. they might just reject any bargains.

If Pistorius is banking everything on getting off by plea bargaining, he needs to be sure that the prosecution can't nail him cold. Can he be so certain?

I wondered about this too. Surely if the prosecution reckon their forensic evidence will stand against OP's story then it is not in their interest to crank out a plea bargain?

gramar

wonderfullife wrote: »

As far as sponsorship goes, he's pretty much toast. The likes of Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Michael Vick all survived nasty public episodes and recovered their sponsorships (infedelity, rape claims and dog fighting respectively) - but this is a dead body and either way he has blood on his hands. He's toast regarding sponsorship.
QUOTE]


The NRA might take him on. I wonder what their take is on all of this? Wait. I already know. He took the reasonable actions that any man would be expected to take in his position.

AudreyHepburn

wonderfullife wrote: »

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.

Again you can't base his guilt or innocence on what you would or wouldn't do in any given situation. It's neither reasonable or relevant.

Where he took the gun from is not an indicator of his intentions either tbh.

seenitall

wonderfullife wrote: »

Upward trajectory and his story holds weight.

If his core assertion is proved true, we have little reason to doubt everything else he has asserted. If his core assertion is proved to be a lie, we have little reason to believe another word he says.

Holds weight - in your opinion (or the court's, or anyone else's who cares to believe his story - because that's what they have to do, believe; legs off is no evidence he didn't mean to shoot her specifically). His story doesn't hold weight in my opinion, whether his legs were on or off.

Why would we have little reason to doubt anything else he has asserted??? He may as well had no legs on when he got so angry with her that he blasted her through the bathroom door. It is as entirely possible as any story he is selling.

Edit: Just want to add that I see what you're saying, it's just that I don't agree with it, or the court, if this is how it decides on reasonable doubt. Not all evidence is relevant to a particular charge, even when it is physical. In this case, the legs on or off thing is in no way relevant to his intention to kill Reeva. Again, he could have had them off, knew she was in the bathroom, and proceeded to shoot at her in a fit of rage - and it is still a much more probable story than his one.

sesswhat

If the gun was used at eye level with the arm extended (without legs), or at hip level with the elbow by the side (with legs), would the trajectory not be similar?

phoenix999

South African police disgraced again by their actions. God help Pistorius with goons like this maintaining law and order. Is this the Mandela legacy? Utter savagery:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/man-dies-south-africa-police-van

BluE-WinG

phoenix999 wrote: »

South African police disgraced again by their actions. God help Pistorius with goons like this maintaining law and order. Is this the Mandela legacy? Utter savagery:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/man-dies-south-africa-police-van

+1 as to why I do not live there anymore. Savages.

fishy fishy

phoenix999 wrote: »

South African police disgraced again by their actions. God help Pistorius reeve's family with goons like this maintaining law and order. Is this the Mandela legacy? Utter savagery:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/man-dies-south-africa-police-van

FYP

opinion guy

Hilton Botha resigns:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21705374

mondeo

Pistorius wants to leave south africa. He is lucky to be on bail as it is.
Why does he want to leave? It seems obvious to me...He is getting nervous now.
http://news.sky.com/story/1062933/oscar-pistorius-wants-to-leave-south-africa

wonderfullife

mondeo wrote: »

Pistorius wants to leave south africa. He is lucky to be on bail as it is.

http://news.sky.com/story/1062933/oscar-pistorius-wants-to-leave-south-africa

Jesus wept:

"His friend Mike Azzie says the star is a "broken man", and his state of mind has worsened since he had to sell his racehorses to raise money to pay his rising legal fees."

A girl is dead at his hands and he wants to leave the country and is depressed further by selling a few horses??? (not for one minute downplaying you can get attached to pets/animals but FFS the girl is still dead)

robinph

I would say that, just speaking to him, that he is a broken man and that I would go as far to say that he would be on the verge of suicide. It really worries me.

She added that he was understood to be spending his time at an uncle's house reading the bible, and said that his family deny that he is suicidal.

Slow news day, lets make an article up, just make sure that you contradict yourself enough so that if the lawyers come calling we can claim that we said any version of events we like.

opinion guy

Ok now he would want to cop on to himself.

The family as a whole seem to have some sort of sense of entitlement going on here

MadYaker

This whole trial has been such a cluster f*ck. It's made a total mockery of the South African justice system. We had a bit of a run in with the cops when I was in South Africa a few years ago doing volunteer work. We were stopped at a police checkpoint and the guy driving didn't have his license but they lets us go when they realised we were volunteer workers. I think its probably the most violent society in the world, apart from countries at war. When I was there we heard about a kid from another school who killed another boy of a similar age, around 16, with a hammer.

wonderfullife

robinph wrote: »

Slow news day, lets make an article up, just make sure that you contradict yourself enough so that if the lawyers come calling we can claim that we said any version of events we like.

Just to clarify it was his best mate saying he is suicidal and the family spokesperson denying it - not quite a contradiction - i mean let's imagine you confide in a best mate you're feeling depressed and then tell your boss in work you are grand, neither would be lying when they say you are depressed and grand.

I would imagine the family spokesperson (and lawyers) would be at pains to emphasise he is in a good state of mind given he wants to leave the country (lol again). If the courts hear he is depressed and suicidal, what's to stop him flying to Italy, "attempt" suicide, get himself sectioned and doctors to sign him off unfit to be deported to stand trial.....

Frankly something stinks here, what grounds does he have for wanting to leave the country? Since when has living in your plush uncles gaf been viewed as "stringent bail conditions"? His bail looks soft to me as it is, even the amount for bail was what 30 or 40 grand! He doesnt even have to report to the police stations just make himself available! They bloody come to him! Stringent indeed

wonderfullife

Quite frankly i'd be happy if the courts were able to revoke his bail for such a spurious, cheeky-as-fcuk appeal against the bail conditions!!

I can't think of a single justifiable reason for wanting to leave the country. Any reason he thinks of is purely for self-interests. Either to raise money competing at athletics events, a holiday, to sell assets abroad etc. There's no fundamental decent reason for wanting to get out of the country you're about to stand trial for murder.

BattleCorp

wonderfullife wrote: »

I can't think of a single justifiable reason for wanting to leave the country. Any reason he thinks of is purely for self-interests. Either to raise money competing at athletics events, a holiday, to sell assets abroad etc. There's no fundamental decent reason for wanting to get out of the country you're about to stand trial for murder.

I can think of another reason for wanting to leave the country. I'd like to compete in a race in a Non Extradition Country please.

seamus

wonderfullife wrote: »

Quite frankly i'd be happy if the courts were able to revoke his bail for such a spurious, cheeky-as-fcuk appeal against the bail conditions!!

Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

If he was to appear in court on a bail appeal he'll be unable to argue that he isn't a flight risk and so his position then looks increasingly precarious.

Appealing his bail would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do IMO, but then he doesn't appear to be the brightest penny...

mondeo

This swine is gonna hoof it...if he gets to a country that does not extradite he knows he will be better off. I think anything would be better then going to prison in SA and he knows it. If I were the authorities there I'd bring him in fast. He knows he is fooked and is starting to panic with ways off getting out.

opinion guy

Did anyone see the documentary on BBC tonight ?

Really...just shocking how willing people close to him and Reeva are to talk to the press. Reeva's housemate and supposed best friend seems to have done a long interview and even gave a tour of Reeva's bedroom and wardrobe - which is pretty dark. Friend just seemed emulating the judge at th ebail hearing and milking her 15mins of fame

fishy fishy

he has a purpose in Life???

I'm sure this girlfriend did too, before she was taken out.

seamus

To be fair to Pistorius, I think at this stage dissecting any comments or press releases is a bit futile.

Whether his story is true or a complete fabrication, it's painfully clear that the guy is an idiot. So we shouldn't be at all surprised when he makes stupid and ill-advised statements.

opinion guy

seamus wrote: »

To be fair to Pistorius, I think at this stage dissecting any comments or press releases is a bit futile.

Whether his story is true or a complete fabrication, it's painfully clear that the guy is an idiot. So we shouldn't be at all surprised when he makes stupid and ill-advised statements.

What amazes me is the willingness of people around him and around Reeva who are willing to talk to the press. I mean yes he himself does seem to be a bit thick - but are all the people surrounding him also thick ? and Reeva's flatmate just came across as milking the attention frankly.

wonderfullife

There's one thing about this whole story that has been troubling me. I've looked at the floorplans and layout, analysed Pistorius story and one thing just does not make sense.

The cubicle she locked herself into was the toilet. The actual bathroom is quite large, with the cubicle for the toilet in it. Yet Pistorius claims he shot at the door 4 times in the "pitch dark."

The real question is this - why would she not turn on the bathroom light? If it's so pitch-dark, and this is not her home, why would she fumble around trying to get to the toilet without putting on a light?

I mean, lets take this logically - if we believe his version of events, we have to assume she heard him get up to go to the balcony, she then got up and went to the toilet. Why would she walk 35 feet from the bed to the cubicle without turning on the bathroom light? Most people, in a relationship, a reason for not turning on a light at night might be not to wake your partner up - but she obviously knew he was awake if his story is to make sense.

I presume she planned on washing her hands afterwards too. I just don't see why she would not turn on the bathroom light.




In other related news:

Lots of circumstantial reports in the tabloid papers (pinch of salt time):

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-girlfriend-left-traumatised-1771045

Reeva locked herself in to a toilet 2 years previously during a break-in. Her uncle speculates this is what she would have done if frightened or scared (of Pistorius).

Of course this may be used by the Prosecution, especially if she filed a police report on that incident. It would tend to support their case if they could show she had a precedent of locking herself in a toilet under fear.

Then again the defence can easily say well yes but she could just have been going to the toilet (and locking the door out of habit).



http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/304064/Oscar-Pistorius-trophies-were-strewn-all-over-death-flat/

Daily Star reports there were trophies all over the place, some broken (implying a possible fight). Obviously this could equally be explained by a distraught Pistorius throwing them around in rage AFTER he shot her.

Interestingly the "source" claims police are examining the possibility Reevas car was moved after the shooting and the doors left open. Maybe i'm a conspiracy theorist, but given Oscars lawyer and others arrived before police, what odds they did that in an initial attempt to suggest an intruder?

Keeps getting stranger and stranger but he'll have his day in court soon.

TwoBirds

wonderfullife wrote: »

There's one thing about this whole story that has been troubling me. I've looked at the floorplans and layout, analysed Pistorius story and one thing just does not make sense.

The cubicle she locked herself into was the toilet. The actual bathroom is quite large, with the cubicle for the toilet in it. Yet Pistorius claims he shot at the door 4 times in the "pitch dark."

The real question is this - why would she not turn on the bathroom light? If it's so pitch-dark, and this is not her home, why would she fumble around trying to get to the toilet without putting on a light?

I mean, lets take this logically - if we believe his version of events, we have to assume she heard him get up to go to the balcony, she then got up and went to the toilet. Why would she walk 35 feet from the bed to the cubicle without turning on the bathroom light? Most people, in a relationship, a reason for not turning on a light at night might be not to wake your partner up - but she obviously knew he was awake if his story is to make sense.

I presume she planned on washing her hands afterwards too. I just don't see why she would not turn on the bathroom light.

Playing devil's advocate: I know he was already awake and on the balcony, but she'd just woken up - it's still somewhat jarring to have a light switched on during the night, even for yourself and not just your partner. She could've been half asleep and just fumbled her way there - I presume she was used to staying over so she knew her way around. Also, having seen the floor plans and photographs, it's a fairly straightforward, obstacle-free route. Presumably she did switch the light on in the bathroom cubicle.

Anyway, as you said yourself, he'll have his day in court. The more I think about it, though, the more OP's story has me convinced - I dunno, my judgement is probably shadowed by my opinion of him pre-Valentine's Day to be honest, but the whole 'killing in cold blood' version just seems bizarre to me.

seamus

Pistorious has won his application to be allowed to leave South Africa

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/317230011318931456

:eek:

Twill be interesting to see what he does on his first trip. Or rather what he does after he gets out of SA...

wonderfullife

seamus wrote: »

Pistorious has won his application to be allowed to leave South Africa

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/317230011318931456

:eek:

Twill be interesting to see what he does on his first trip. Or rather what he does after he gets out of SA...

Money talks.

This case was already a farce, now it's just madness. They went to great lengths at bail to say his home is SA and he is not a flight risk, now he wants out the country. On holiday i'm sure

opinion guy

Ridiculous decision

robinph

wonderfullife wrote: »

Money talks.

This case was already a farce, now it's just madness. They went to great lengths at bail to say his home is SA and he is not a flight risk, now he wants out the country. On holiday i'm sure

Well to compete, not holiday.

He is still innocent at the moment and I guess they argued along the lines of him not being able to leave SA is denying him the chance to continue with his job of international athlete.

Blah, blah, what about Reeva, blah blah. Yes, shes dead, but that has nothing to do with if OP is allowed to continue with his "job" whilst waiting for trial.

I'm still surprised they granted it though.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

Well to compete, not holiday.

He is still innocent at the moment and I guess they argued along the lines of him not being able to leave SA is denying him the chance to continue with his job of international athlete.

Blah, blah, what about Reeva, blah blah. Yes, shes dead, but that has nothing to do with if OP is allowed to continue with his "job" whilst waiting for trial.

I'm still surprised they granted it though.

I think I mentioned this would happen in a post weeks ago.

Rascasse

Two things I don't understand is;

1 What organiser in their right mind would pay or invite him to run in their competition?

2. Does he expect to get a visa to travel? South Africans need visas for the US, UK and Schengen area (plus many more) and they surely won't issue one while he has proceedings against him. So where is he going to go?

Surely he doesn't think he can continue on like before while being charged with murder.

TwoBirds

Rascasse wrote: »

Two things I don't understand is;

1 What organiser in their right mind would pay or invite him to run in their competition?

2. Does he expect to get a visa to travel? South Africans need visas for the US, UK and Schengen area (plus many more) and they surely won't issue one while he has proceedings against him. So where is he going to go?

Surely he doesn't think he can continue on like before while being charged with murder.

Regarding Point #1, I'd imagine it's highly unlikely he will race in any competitions before the trial (and possibly afterwards, either). Can't imagine any organisers would want to muddy up their reputation like that, plus would he even want to subject himself to the inevitable negative publicity (oh, he's acting as if nothing happened, etc.) and reaction from crowds?

It seems to me that the defence needed to give a justifiable reason for him wanting his passport, and generating income to pay for legal expenses is a fair enough justification. In actuality, if he does jet off anywhere, I'm sure it'll be to someplace where he can go out about without attention from the public or the press.

robinph

Rascasse wrote: »

Two things I don't understand is;

1 What organiser in their right mind would pay or invite him to run in their competition?

One that wants to sell lots of tickets to people who will want to see him run. He'll not be a big draw for personal sponsorship money anymore, but tickets will sell like hot cakes and the TV coverage rights for him running a lap around a track will be worth loads.

Rascasse wrote: »

2. Does he expect to get a visa to travel? South Africans need visas for the US, UK and Schengen area (plus many more) and they surely won't issue one while he has proceedings against him. So where is he going to go?

Surely he doesn't think he can continue on like before while being charged with murder.

At the moment he is just charged with murder and is now also free to travel. In most cases I'd doubt that would have much impact on visas being granted as no court has yet decided on hi guilt or otherwise.

Rascasse

robinph wrote: »

One that wants to sell lots of tickets to people who will want to see him run. He'll not be a big draw for personal sponsorship money anymore, but tickets will sell like hot cakes and the TV coverage rights for him running a lap around a track will be worth loads.

They may sell loads of tickets and there may be some interest from Sky News and the like, but none of the corporate sponsors would touch it. There would also be a big risk of protests and the bad PR that would bring. I also don't think competing would be in his best interest, too 'business like usual' for a man that shot his girlfriend.

robinph wrote: »

At the moment he is just charged with murder and is now also free to travel. In most cases I'd doubt that would have much impact on visas being granted as no court has yet decided on hi guilt or otherwise.

I really can't see him getting a visa. The person making the decision will have to decide whether to approve a visa for someone that if accused in US/UK/France etc would be locked up until the trial. And if he is let in and he kicks off and hurts somebody else (or worse), could you imagine the fall out? Too big a risk.

robinph

Rascasse wrote: »

They may sell loads of tickets and there may be some interest from Sky News and the like, but none of the corporate sponsors would touch it. There would also be a big risk of protests and the bad PR that would bring. I also don't think competing would be in his best interest, too 'business like usual' for a man that shot his girlfriend.

What would people be protesting about? It's not like he's just gone an bombed Iraq or anything, people will be curious and might not be comfortable with the idea of him competing, but there isn't any cause to protest about.

Would be a risky move for the promoter, but then he's probably not going to get an invite to a Diamond League event, would be a good draw for a small meet though and bring them in more publicity and money than they have ever had before.

Rascasse wrote: »

I really can't see him getting a visa. The person making the decision will have to decide whether to approve a visa for someone that if accused in US/UK/France etc would be locked up until the trial. And if he is let in and he kicks off and hurts somebody else (or worse), could you imagine the fall out? Too big a risk.

Dunno about the US or France, but don't think he'd currently be locked up in the UK. He's not a risk to society, once we ignore the different gun laws, and he can't exactly disappear easily so I'd expect him to have got bail in the UK as well even without the useless copper they had in SA to start with.

Rascasse

robinph wrote: »

What would people be protesting about? It's not like he's just gone an bombed Iraq or anything, people will be curious and might not be comfortable with the idea of him competing, but there isn't any cause to protest about.

The same reason the ANC Women's League were protesting everyday outside court - violence against women. There would be a very real chance it could become a cause célébre amongst feminist groups (and others).

robinph wrote: »

Dunno about the US or France, but don't think he'd currently be locked up in the UK. He's not a risk to society, once we ignore the different gun laws, and he can't exactly disappear easily so I'd expect him to have got bail in the UK as well even without the useless copper they had in SA to start with.

Bail for murder in the UK? Incredibly rare. The only time I can remember (because there was such an outcry about it) was a copper who was bailed on a murder charge and he killed himself.

Pistorius is accused of killing in a fit of rage. He is, therefore, accused of being dangerous and as such should not be allowed in Europe (or anywhere else) unless he's acquitted.

Edit: Here is the story of the cop that killed himself while on bail for murder (killed his wife). I forgot that he also killed his mother in law while on bail, hence the controversy.