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

AEDIC

Would have already been thrown out of court here I would say, just based in the massive levels on incompetence from the Police.

I am warming to this defence lawyer a little, he has a definite line of attack and he is very thorough in getting over to the court where the glaring errors are without actually accusing those giving evidence of anything.

cynicalcough

I was very much of the mind that it was intentional at the beginning of the trial but I've had a change of heart. As said above I just dont think the prosecution has shown anything that disputes Pistorius' version of events. Also the fact that he was not wearing his prosthetic legs when he fired the shots was quite convincing for me in terms of backing up his version of events as surely if they were in a situation where they were arguing he would have wanted to be at his full height for dominance?

Still not convinced either way but for me the defense case looks a lot stronger at the moment.

Bacchus

What's the significance of the prothetic legs? I thought the defence proved earlier that he had to have been wearing them when he tried to smash in the door with the cricket bat. So, are they saying he put them on after he shot through the door?

The police seemed to have screwed this up big time. I remember when this first happened, there seemed to be a lot of pressure on the investigators to do things right. Seems like nothing could be further from the truth. It's a disgrace really because any verdict now (guilty or not) will be tainted by all these holes the defence lawyer can pick apart at ease. If he is found not guilty, will it be because he is really innocent and the evidence proved it or will it be just because the evidence was mishandled by the police investigating it.

Personally, I believe his version of events and I think I've a load of posts way back in this thread when it first happened going into why. Nothing in the trial so far has made me change my opinion.

pH

So she got up in the middle of the night, in pitch darkness, locked herself in the bathroom and proceeded to bash around, waking him up and startling him.

And while she continues to trash around in the dark locked bathroom he picks up his gun, makes his way to the door in the dark and blasts it 4 times without every checking where she was, or who was in the bathroom, because in his mind a burglar with urgent and noisy toilet habits had just run in there.

The mind boggles that anyone could give credence to such rubbish for more than half a second, but because he's a charismatic male sporting figure and she was only a woman, I guess there'll be cheering in Irish bars when he's acquitted like there was for OJ.

Bacchus

pH wrote: »

So she got up in the middle of the night, in pitch darkness, locked herself in the bathroom and proceeded to bash around, waking him up and startling him.

And while she continues to trash around in the dark locked bathroom he picks up his gun, makes his way to the door in the dark and blasts it 4 times without every checking where she was, or who was in the bathroom, because in his mind a burglar with urgent and noisy toilet habits had just run in there.

The mind boggles that anyone could give credence to such rubbish for more than half a second, but because he's a charismatic male sporting figure and she was only a woman, I guess there'll be cheering in Irish bars when he's acquitted like there was for OJ.

Who said she was bashing or trashing around? First I've heard of that. I thought he got up move a fan in the balcony and that woke HER up, she went to the bathroom without him noticing and he then heard a noise that sounded like someone had snuck in through the bathroom window. I think you've taken a lot of liberties with your version of events to paint it as "mind boggling" that anyone could believe his story.

pH

pH wrote: »

So she got up in the middle of the night, in pitch darkness, locked herself in the bathroom and proceeded to bash around, waking him up and startling him.

And while she continues to trash around in the dark locked bathroom he picks up his gun, makes his way to the door in the dark and blasts it 4 times without every checking where she was, or who was in the bathroom, because in his mind a burglar with urgent and noisy toilet habits had just run in there.

The mind boggles that anyone could give credence to such rubbish for more than half a second, but because he's a charismatic male sporting figure and she was only a woman, I guess there'll be cheering in Irish bars when he's acquitted like there was for OJ.

You're missing the point. If there is no compelling evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended to kill her, he must be acquitted.

Whether it's unlikely, whether he's charismatic or abusive or stupid or whatever, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is enough evidence to make a conviction secure, because if he's convicted on anything less than facts, it's unsafe. And so are the rest of us, if we can convict on the feeling that someone might be lying.

I think there's already enough doubt about the facts for any conviction to be unsafe, which is not quite the same as saying that I think he didn't do it. I think he most likely deliberately killed her, but that he can't be convicted on the evidence. My feelings or anyone elses feelings are entirely beside the point. Justice is a two way street.

Merkin

Interesting relay of text exchanges between the defendant and Steenkamp in the weeks leading up to her death.

He's playing a blinder with the crocodile tears too. :rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/oscar-pistorius-fall-from-grace/

I read this article online the other day and thought it would be worth posting.

It's nice to see a good, unbiased take on the whole, or at the very least a piece/opinion that does not go in for the scaremongering and guilty-til-proven-innocent attitude that seems to have dominated this case.

pH

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/oscar-pistorius-fall-from-grace/

I read this article online the other day and thought it would be worth posting.

It's nice to see a good, unbiased take on the whole, or at the very least a piece/opinion that does not go in for the scaremongering and guilty-til-proven-innocent attitude that seems to have dominated this case.

Well any "article" which as a start tries to frame the murder of a woman as "a fall from grace" would seem to be completely in line with the "how could all this possibly be happening to an important white man" reporting and commentary that's gone before.

A woman is dead with a bullet in the face, but what let's not lose perspective here! what's important is how the world now views Pistorius!

robinph

pH wrote: »

Well any "article" which as a start tries to frame the murder of a woman as "a fall from grace" would seem to be completely in line with the "how could all this possibly be happening to an important white man" reporting and commentary that's gone before.

A woman is dead with a bullet in the face, but what let's not lose perspective here! what's important is how the world now views Pistorius!

Well the important bit is how the court views Pistouris and that they can come to a decision on what actually happened without the media already having decided the case for them.

He is still innocent of murder at this point, although he admits to the killing. Until the court says otherwise that is all that matters.

Ash.J.Williams

yeah the fact his he shot an innocent girl in the face....weather he manages to prove it to be an accident is another story...either way he's an idiot who should not be allowed near a gun.

brimal

Oscar Pistorius himself has taken the stand NOW and it's live here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26916912

Merkin

Crying buckets as well. He's playing a blinder, I hope they see through the facade.

Merkin

Merkin wrote: »

Crying buckets as well. He's playing a blinder, I hope they see through the facade.

I think the tears are sincere enough, but they're for himself only.

The picture is being filled in over the last while and it's a pretty ugly character portrait to be honest. He's coming across as very self-serving.



Must turn off telly and do some work!

robinph

I'm glad that the case is being heard by a professional judge and they they have other legal professionals overseeing her decisions to ensure that the final judgement is is based on the actual evidence, and not any assumptions that the majority of other people seem to be jumping to.

keeponhurling

Ah now, even if he did kill the girlfriend deliberately, I'd say it was a moment of anger,

It would be upsetting to think about it.

Ash.J.Williams

puke!

"I want people to know that she was loved when she went to bed that night..."

robinph

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

puke!

Why?

Any actual real reason for you not believing that?

sopretty

Well, he's just told his first lie now under oath. He said about an hour and a half ago, that he wasn't drinking the day of the boating accident. Now he has said that he remembers having one drink....

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

Well, he's just told his first lie now under oath. He said about an hour and a half ago, that he wasn't drinking the day of the boating accident. Now he has said that he remembers having one drink....

Don't think that makes him guilty of pre-meditated murder though

Just means his memory is a bit flakey and he corrected his error whilst still giving evidence so no harm done.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Don't think that makes him guilty of pre-meditated murder though

Just means his memory is a bit flakey and he corrected his error whilst still giving evidence so no harm done.

Means he's capable of lying under oath.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

Means he's capable of lying under oath.

Only if he'd left the stand and not corrected it.

Anyone is capable of forgetting minor details about a day in their life from several years ago.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Only if he'd left the stand and not corrected it.

Anyone is capable of forgetting minor details about a day in their life from several years ago.

Not if they state that the media was reporting that he was drinking that day. You'd remember very well whether you had or had not been drinking in that case.

pH

robinph wrote: »

Why?

Any actual real reason for you not believing that?

Um. because she was so terrified of him she locked herself in a toilet and he then proceeded to shoot her in the face?

brimal

robinph wrote: »

Only if he'd left the stand and not corrected it.

Anyone is capable of forgetting minor details about a day in their life from several years ago.

Minor details such as iPhone passwords?

Pistorius told investigating officers he didn't remember his iPhone password - luckily the police managed to jailbreak it and found he had been using it up until a few hours before the shooting :rolleyes:

Merkin

keeponhurling wrote: »

Ah now, even if he did kill the girlfriend deliberately, I'd say it was a moment of anger,

It would be upsetting to think about it.

A moment of anger? What if it was? I don't think anyone has asserted it was premeditated. We've established that they had a volatile relationship, he was extremely possessive and that he had an obsession with firearms. Doesn't make him any less culpable if done in anger.

And I'm with Candie on this, the tears ARE real but only for himself and the implications a guilty verdict will have on HIM.

robinph

pH wrote: »

Um. because she was so terrified of him she locked herself in a toilet and he then proceeded to shoot her in the face?

So that would be a no then?

There isn't anything to say she was terrified of him.
Are you suggesting that he has xray vision so that he knew where her head was behind the door?

brimal wrote: »

Minor details such as iPhone passwords?

Pistorius told investigating officers he didn't remember his iPhone password - luckily the police managed to jailbreak it and found he had been using it up until a few hours before the shooting :rolleyes:

Completely different issue remembering what you were doing on at a particular time on a specific day several years ago than remembering your password for a phone that you use everyday. Different memory processes.

It is odd that he didn't remember the password for the phone, but not inconceivable after a traumatic event to loose such memories. They got in anyway though and found whatever data was there.

keeponhurling

Merkin wrote: »

A moment of anger? What if it was? I don't think anyone has asserted it was premeditated. We've established that they had a volatile relationship, he was extremely possessive and that he had an obsession with firearms. Doesn't make him any less culpable if done in anger.

And I'm with Candie on this, the tears ARE real but only for himself and the implications a guilty verdict will have on HIM.

Yes, I agree with you. I was responding to someone who said that the tears were acting.

The tears could well be real cos of the upset of it all.

But doesn't make him any less culpible though.

robinph

keeponhurling wrote: »

But doesn't make him any less culpible though.

That he is not disputing. He admits to the shooting and 100% takes the blame for what happened.

pH

Look all the following point to the fact the his story is a crock of sh*t:

Her stomach content analysis
Her screams before the gunshots
Her being behind a *locked* door (in the pitch dark according to him) in a private house.
Her state of dress
His unbelievable story about thinking an intruder had locked themselves in his bathroom/coupled with the further nonsense that he opened fire in the pitch black without ever even considering where she was.

But there are those here (and i guess elsewhere) that are adamant that when a popular well off white man goes on trial, unless you can 100% proves exactly what was in his mind at the precise second the murder occured you have to acquit him!

By these standards, I guess no one (well rich popular men who kill women anyways) could ever be found guilty of murder!

Merkin

robinph wrote: »

That he is not disputing. He admits to the shooting and 100% takes the blame for what happened.

Yes, but also spouting absolute bullsh1t about how he thought he had apprehended an intruder and failing to notice that his girlfriend was not in bed. As cover stories go, it's a pretty rubbish one.

Pumpkinseeds

I haven't really been following the trial but I've just had to mute the volume on Sky news while they cover him giving evidence. Sweet Jesus, I know his barrister is doing a PR job but for goodness sake it's going too far. Between him portraying himself as an animal loving Christian who grew up with a paranoid gun owning mother and crying at will, I find it nauseating.

So his mother owned a gun when he was a kid, so he rescued an abused dog, so he can't sleep at night since he killed his girlfriend. It doesn't justify him being a short-tempered, gun toting, control freak. On the rare occassions where I've seen Sky's coverage of him in court I've felt that it's just all part of a well coached act that he's putting on.

Merkin

pH wrote: »

But there are those here (and i guess elsewhere) that are adamant that when a popular well off white man goes on trial, unless you can 100% proves exactly what was in his mind at the precise second the murder occured you have to acquit him!

By these standards, I guess no one (well rich popular men who kill women anyways) could ever be found guilty of murder!

I think this is a vital case for South Africa and race equality though. I've read a number of articles about how the case is viewed by the local population at large, apparently the verdict will have a far greater impact then we think, I.e. that the rich white man is no longer infallible and is subject to the same judicial processes as his black counterpart.

brimal

robinph wrote: »

There isn't anything to say she was terrified of him.

"I'm scared of you sometimes and how you snap at me and how you will react to me"

That was one of the Whatsapp messages Reeva sent Oscar after another one of his paranoid, aggressive tantrums.

robinph wrote: »

Completely different issue remembering what you were doing on at a particular time on a specific day several years ago than remembering your password for a phone that you use everyday. Different memory processes.

It is odd that he didn't remember the password for the phone, but not inconceivable after a traumatic event to loose such memories. They got in anyway though and found whatever data was there.

Using a password or lock on your phone is something you will have to input several if not many times a day - trauma or not, he would have remembered it, especially given extra time.

pH

It's almost unbelievable, his defense is a sort of combination of justified self defense homicide and mistaken identity. We're not talking about a random encounter with a gang of thugs in a back alley here - it was his girlfriend in their own home.

We're genuinely discussing (apparently) whether the killing of an unarmed woman behind a locked toilet door in a private residence can be justified as an act of self defense. Bizarre, bizarre .... bizarre.

robinph

pH wrote: »

Look all the following point to the fact the his story is a crock of sh*t:

Her stomach content analysis

Missed that bit. Thought that was just someone saying that she'd been to the loo. Was there anything more about earlier meals in that analysis?

pH wrote: »

Her screams before the gunshots

People hearing the noises is a load of rubbish and none of them can be considered reliable witnesses to the noises they heard or the sequence of them. People from the same room in a house in the next estate over couldn't even agree on what they heard.

pH wrote: »

Her being behind a *locked* door (in the pitch dark according to him) in a private house.

Agreed, that is odd and brings a big question over his version of events.

pH wrote: »

Her state of dress

Unless she was fully clothed and wearing outdoor clothes in bed I'm not sure it's that odd whatever she was wearing.

pH wrote: »

His unbelievable story about thinking an intruder had locked themselves in his bathroom/coupled with the further nonsense that he opened fire in the pitch black without ever even considering where she was.

His story is perfectly plausible. Sounds a bit odd in the cold light of day to us who don't live in SA with prosthetic legs, but it's not unreasonable for someone who is scared for their life and undeniably far more vulnerable than most other people when in bed without his legs on to be that scared and have a weapon in close proximity. Yes, his story doesn't fit with what we'd hope to have happened, such that a bit more attention was paid to the situation and he thought for a moment before shooting. But it is still plausible that it happened as he said.

Does make him a major time idiot though.

pH wrote: »

But there are those here (and i guess elsewhere) that are adamant that when a popular well off white man goes on trial, unless you can 100% proves exactly what was in his mind at the precise second the murder occured you have to acquit him!

By these standards, I guess no one (well rich popular men who kill women anyways) could ever be found guilty of murder!

I absolutely do not think he should go free.
Based on the evidence that was available on day 1 when they charged him with murder there was zero case for that charge. He should have been charged with the equivalent of manslaughter.
If subsequent evidence came to light to make it murder then they could up the charge. The police properly ballsed it up though and it is now being based on a trial by media and very dodgy circumstantial evidence. They didn't have the forensic evidence at the start, or the phone or anything other than a dodgy copper who decided to make it into a murder charge.

If he murdered her then I have no problem with him going down for that. What I have a problem with is dodgy justice trying to make some evidence meet their charge.

robinph

brimal wrote: »

"I'm scared of you sometimes and how you snap at me and how you will react to me"

That was one of the Whatsapp messages Reeva sent Oscar after another one of his paranoid, aggressive tantrums.



Using a password or lock on your phone is something you will have to input several if not many times a day - trauma or not, he would have remembered it, especially given extra time.

Yep, claiming to forget the password is not good for him.

The Whatsapp message isn't great either, but they won't be putting much weight on that alone as who hasn't every said "I hate you" to someone they love? Just with modern social media it all gets recorded for posterity.

pH wrote: »

It's almost unbelievable, his defense is a sort of combination of justified self defense homicide and mistaken identity. We're not talking about a random encounter with a gang of thugs in a back alley here - it was his girlfriend in their own home.

We're genuinely discussing (apparently) whether the killing of an unarmed woman behind a locked toilet door in a private residence can be justified as an act of self defense. Bizarre, bizarre .... bizarre.

No, it's about if it was plausible that he didn't know she was behind the door or not. If he can convince the court that he thought it was an intruder then it isn't murder, it's manslaughter.

gordongekko

pH wrote: »

But there are those here (and i guess elsewhere) that are adamant that when a popular well off white man goes on trial, unless you can 100% proves exactly what was in his mind at the precise second the murder occured you have to acquit him!

what has the colour of his skin got to do with it?

Ash.J.Williams

robinph wrote: »

Why?

Any actual real reason for you not believing that?

He' saying romantic things to get a lighter sentence for shooting his missus in the face.

robinph

Hope that nobody on here gets called for jury service with all the lynch mob attitudes. The justice system is meant to be about considering the actual evidence, not jumping to conclusions.

AudreyHepburn

sopretty wrote: »

Well, he's just told his first lie now under oath. He said about an hour and a half ago, that he wasn't drinking the day of the boating accident. Now he has said that he remembers having one drink....

Why assume that was lie?

Couldn't he have simply forgotten that detail until now? Memories can and do alter over time.

sopretty

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why assume that was lie?

Couldn't he have simply forgotten that detail until now? Memories can and do alter over time.

Did you hear the actual testimony?

AudreyHepburn

keeponhurling wrote: »

Yes, I agree with you. I was responding to someone who said that the tears were acting.

The tears could well be real cos of the upset of it all.

But doesn't make him any less culpible though.

No they don't. But then he's never actually said he's innocent. Not even once.

AudreyHepburn

sopretty wrote: »

Did you hear the actual testimony?

Yes I did. He's upset, he's under huge stress.

It is possible that under such circumstances you would get confused and flustered and forget things.

sopretty

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes I did. He's upset, he's under huge stress.

It is possible that under such circumstances you would get confused and flustered and forget things.

His first testimony was that he was upset that media was reporting that he had been drinking that day. His barrister asked him 'and had you been drinking that day?' 'No', he replied. An hour and a half later approx., he suddenly remembered that he had had one drink that day.

StinkyMunkey

One thing i cant get my head around. Why someone would blindly fire into a locked door when you dont know where you girlfriend is. Why you would blindly fire into a locked door without any exchange of words.

The case screams OJ Simpson to me.

No matter how i run the scenario over in my head, i cant come to the exact same outcome without tripping over my intent to murder my girlfriend in some rage.

How this can even be considered self defence boggles the mind (yes i am aware he lives in SA).

sopretty

I'm wondering as to the relevance of the emphasis placed today on him covering his prosthetics with his clothes and such. What point are they coming at with this piece of info?

You're not going to hear a sound in the bathroom, dash off with your gun and blast the door out of it. Without at least roaring at the person to come out with their hands up or something. Also, what would an intruder be doing going to a toilet? I feel he is guilty. I feel he regrets it and is remorseful, but I do still feel his intention was a rage induced shooting of her.

Pumpkinseeds

I don't believe that there is anyway that he could not have heard his girlfriend begging him not to shoot her. If he'd shot her once and she'd survived it might be plausible, but he shot her repeatedly and still maintains that he didn't know it was her. Totally implausible.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

I'm wondering as to the relevance of the emphasis placed today on him covering his prosthetics with his clothes and such. What point are they coming at with this piece of info?

You're not going to hear a sound in the bathroom, dash off with your gun and blast the door out of it. Without at least roaring at the person to come out with their hands up or something. Also, what would an intruder be doing going to a toilet? I feel he is guilty. I feel he regrets it and is remorseful, but I do still feel his intention was a rage induced shooting of her.

I think that the bit about his legs was to cover the vulnerability of a double amputee without legs, which then lead onto the second bit where he is feeling so vulnerable that he goes and shoots at the door of the toilet due to his fear. That is what the defence is trying to establish.

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I don't believe that there is anyway that he could not have heard his girlfriend begging him not to shoot her. If he'd shot her once and she'd survived it might be plausible, but he shot her repeatedly and still maintains that he didn't know it was her. Totally implausible.

Well he didn't hear her because he had just shot her. Do we know that the scream from someone who has been shot and is now behind a door is recognisable as Reeva whilst he still has the gunshot ringing in his ears?

He is a complete idiot and potentially dangerous with his gun handling skills. There still really isn't anything at all to point to pre-meditated murder. The only thing that is being proven is that he is an idiot and he should be locked up for manslaughter.

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

People hearing the noises is a load of rubbish and none of them can be considered reliable witnesses to the noises they heard or the sequence of them. People from the same room in a house in the next estate over couldn't even agree on what they heard.

Oh so several independent witness testimony is rubbish, but Oscar telling lies on the stand (Drinking) or not remembering a code he enters in his phone several times is all understandable. He is/was under pressure. Did you notice that every prosecution witness got it wrong according to Oscar, whether its his ex girlfriend, his mate who was driving the car he shot out of and also took the blame for firing the gun in the restaurant or the neighbors who heard a frightened women scream. Of course his memory is perfect on all these events.

Also you are complaining that people in the same room couldn't agree on what that heard, thats because they are not meant to. They are not meant to discuss the events with each so they don't synchronize their testimony. Of course if they had you would be highlighting that as a reason that there testimony is 'rubbish'.