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

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Yep, fine. That is pretty much his version of events.

So where are the bus sized holes in that?

It is unbelievable and will hopefully have the holes exposed by cross-examination. Also, bear in mind the contradictory evidence his previous girlfriend gave which would completely and utterly refute most of this scenario.

snowbabe

Who said she was sitting up in bed on her iphone when he woke?? I thought he woke and she asked him could he not sleep?? Havent seen mention of her sitting up in bed anywhere.I think he contradicted himself a few times today though. "I had no plans for valentines day" then he said he had planned to bring her to the jewellery shop and have dinner ,big fat juicy lie!!!! Its all a bit odd that night they seemed to act like an old married couple,not a young couple so in love who didnt get to see each other that often,j6st my opinion though.

jimgoose

robinph wrote: »

Agreed.

So what would you charge him with based on him being an idiot?

Murder or manslaughter?

Remember the only thing you have to go on is that he's an idiot.

I'd charge him with murder, on the assumption that he's either a fool or a reckless incompetent.

sopretty

snowbabe wrote: »

Who said she was sitting up in bed on her iphone when he woke??

He did, in his evidence today. His barrister asked where she was. He said she was still sitting up in the bed on her phone and that he pulled himself up to leaning back against the back of the bed too.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

It is unbelievable and will hopefully have the holes exposed by cross-examination. Also, bear in mind the contradictory evidence his previous girlfriend gave which would completely and utterly refute most of this scenario.

The holes are not all that big, a very unfortunate sequence of events, but once he has assumed that she is still in bed, then everything else fits into the story perfectly fine.
The previous girlfriends testimony is only really evidence of what he did when they were together. His story does say that he spoke to Reeva, but if the noise he heard whilst he knew they were both awake was loud then would he really feel the need for her to confirm that she heard the noise from the bathroom?

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

The holes are not all that big, a very unfortunate sequence of events, but once he has assumed that she is still in bed, then everything else fits into the story perfectly fine.
The previous girlfriends testimony is only really evidence of what he did when they were together. His story does say that he spoke to Reeva, but if the noise he heard whilst he knew they were both awake was loud then would he really feel the need for her to confirm that she heard the noise from the bathroom?

You're getting fierce confused here lol.
He states he believed she was still in the bed.
Obviously, she was in the bathroom at the time.

I think you can't understand the basics here.

robinph

jimgoose wrote: »

I'd charge him with murder, on the assumption that he's either a fool or a reckless incompetent.

Well your case would be thrown out on the first day, and you as the charging police officer, would probably get a reprimand for wasting the courts time and being a useless investigator.

Next.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Well your case would be thrown out on the first day, and you as the charging police officer, would probably get a reprimand for wasting the courts time and being a useless investigator.

Next.

Robin, please tell me you're not a cop?

snowbabe

Must have missed that bit sopretty,ive done nothing watching this trial. So her ifone shed some light in the pitch black room when he went to get fan!! Think this is a big mistake by OP

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

You're getting fierce confused here lol.
He states he believed she was still in the bed.
Obviously, she was in the bathroom at the time.

I think you can't understand the basics here.

I know that she was in the bathroom.

Pistouris didn't according to his story. He assumed that she was a couple of feet away from him in the bed still and had also heard the noise. The previous girlfriends testimony was that OP would always confirm with her about noises that he'd heard during the night. OP didn't do that on this occasion because Reeva was obviously (to him) still in the bed and had heard the noise.

jimgoose

robinph wrote: »

Well your case would be thrown out on the first day, and you as the charging police officer, would probably get a reprimand for wasting the courts time and being a useless investigator.

Next.

So be it.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

Robin, please tell me you're not a cop?

You cannot charge someone with murder just because they are an idiot.

jimgoose

robinph wrote: »

I know that she was in the bathroom.

Pistouris didn't according to his story. He assumed that she was a couple of feet away from him in the bed...

Such an assumption is fine when throwing her in her slippers. Not when an automatic pistol is involved.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

OP didn't do that on this occasion because Reeva was obviously (to him) still in the bed and had heard the noise.

Where did you get that piece of evidence from? :pac:

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

The holes are not all that big, a very unfortunate sequence of events, but once he has assumed that she is still in bed, then everything else fits into the story perfectly fine.

No it doesn't. After he got his gun and before he made his way down the passage to the bathroom he did this "I was overcome with fear and started shouting and screaming for the intruder to get out of my house.""

No reaction from Reeva in the Bathroom

He next said this "Just before I got to the passage of the bathroom I heard a door slam, which could only have been the toilet door."

So by his own testimony Reeva must have still been in the bathroom when he was screaming and shouting. So he can hear a window open in said bathroom from the bedroom but Reeva can't hear him screaming and shouting from the bedroom. Remember there is no door between bedroom and bathroom.

You can confirm those timelines from a court reporter here

jimgoose

robinph wrote: »

You cannot charge someone with murder just because they are an idiot.

Wouldn't dream of it, guv'nor. Malice Aforethought, and what-have-you.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

Where did you get that piece of evidence from? :pac:

Think our wires are getting a bit crossed here about this point. I'm not claiming that Reeva heard anything or acknowledged to hearing anything.

Previous girlfriend claimed that OP always confirmed with her about noises heard. That evidence was used to clam that OP not confirming with Reeva about the noise was unusual behaviour and therefore a hole in his story.

However, OP's version of events does not contradict the previous girlfriends testimony as it was a different situation. He had spoken to Reeva seconds before, was then stood by the window, heard a noise from the bathroom and OP was then still assuming that Reeva was still in bed. As he was assuming she was still in bed he just told her to keep quiet and he then went off to investigate the noise.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Think our wires are getting a bit crossed here about this point. I'm not claiming that Reeva heard anything or acknowledged to hearing anything.

Previous girlfriend claimed that OP always confirmed with her about noises heard. That evidence was used to clam that OP not confirming with Reeva about the noise was unusual behaviour and therefore a hole in his story.

However, OP's version of events does not contradict the previous girlfriends testimony as it was a different situation. He had spoken to Reeva seconds before, was then stood by the window, heard a noise from the bathroom and OP was then still assuming that Reeva was still in bed. As he was assuming she was still in bed he just told her to keep quiet and he then went off to investigate the noise.

So, he didn't hear her going to the bathroom. She didn't think to tell him? 'Babes, I'm going to the bathroom'? She just slunk off, while he was pulling the curtains. He didn't hear her, didn't see her, then didn't notice her gone from the bed, heard a noise in the bathroom, didn't think to check whether Reeva was in the bed, got his gun from under the bed, spoke to his girlfriend in whispers, who didn't whisper back, and he still presumed she was in the bed?

You've got to be kidding me??????/

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

No it doesn't. After he got his gun and before he made his way down the passage to the bathroom he did this "I was overcome with fear and started shouting and screaming for the intruder to get out of my house.""

No reaction from Reeva in the Bathroom

He next said this "Just before I got to the passage of the bathroom I heard a door slam, which could only have been the toilet door."

So by his own testimony Reeva must have still been in the bathroom when he was screaming and shouting. So he can hear a window open in said bathroom from the bedroom but Reeva can't hear him screaming and shouting from the bedroom. Remember there is no door between bedroom and bathroom.

You can confirm those timelines from a court reporter here

Reeva heard him screaming that there was someone in the house whilst she was in the bathroom. OP assumed Reeva was still in bed, Reeva assumed OP was shouting about somewhere else in the house so shut herself in the toilet and kept quiet.
OP then hears the toilet door closing and because in his belief that Reeva is hiding under the covers he goes and investigates the noise in the bathroom.

It all fits, you are just refusing to see it.

Tasden

robinph wrote: »

Think our wires are getting a bit crossed here about this point. I'm not claiming that Reeva heard anything or acknowledged to hearing anything.

Previous girlfriend claimed that OP always confirmed with her about noises heard. That evidence was used to clam that OP not confirming with Reeva about the noise was unusual behaviour and therefore a hole in his story.

However, OP's version of events does not contradict the previous girlfriends testimony as it was a different situation. He had spoken to Reeva seconds before, was then stood by the window, heard a noise from the bathroom and OP was then still assuming that Reeva was still in bed. As he was assuming she was still in bed he just told her to keep quiet and he then went off to investigate the noise.

This seems fairly plausible. If he was moving fans and doors and whatnot he was focused on whatever he was doing, any noise reeva made by going into the bathroom, which isn't a lot tbf, would've been drowned out by the noise of what he was doing- especially if in the dark, you tend to make more noise moving objects blindly as opposed to just tip toeing to the toilet. If he then heard a door slam he'd tell her to stay where she is/ring the police because obviously she would have heard a slam too.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

So, he didn't hear her going to the bathroom. She didn't think to tell him? 'Babes, I'm going to the bathroom'? She just slunk off, while he was pulling the curtains. He didn't hear her, didn't see her, then didn't notice her gone from the bed, heard a noise in the bathroom, didn't think to check whether Reeva was in the bed, got his gun from under the bed, spoke to his girlfriend in whispers, who didn't whisper back, and he still presumed she was in the bed?

You've got to be kidding me??????/

Do you make an announcement every time you go to the loo?

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

This seems fairly plausible. If he was moving fans and doors and whatnot he was focused on whatever he was doing, any noise reeva made by going into the bathroom, which isn't a lot tbf, would've been drowned out by the noise of what he was doing- especially if in the dark, you tend to make more noise moving objects blindly as opposed to just tip toeing to the toilet. If he then heard a door slam he'd tell her to stay where she is/ring the police because obviously she would have heard a slam too.

Do you honestly believe he moved fans in black dark on his stumps? Which he claims he is unstable on? :eek:

Gosh, some people are gullible.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Do you make an announcement every time you go to the loo?

Whenever I'm in company I usually excuse myself yes.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

Whenever I'm in company I usually excuse myself yes.

At 3am I think I'd just go and screw the formalities.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

Do you honestly believe he moved fans in black dark on his stumps? Which he claims he is unstable on? :eek:

Gosh, some people are gullible.

How do I know what he is or isn't able to do? If I told you when he was a baby with no legs that he'd be a world famous athlete you probably wouldn't have believed that.

If he did then I suppose it'd definitely make enough noise to cover up the noise of reeva going to the toilet if he's that unstable!

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

How do I know what he is or isn't able to do? If I told you when he was a baby with no legs that he'd be a world famous athlete you probably wouldn't have believed that.

If he did then I suppose it'd definitely make enough noise to cover up the noise of reeva going to the toilet if he's that unstable!

He testified that he couldn't walk on the tiles without holding onto the wall. But, he could move two fans in, on his stumps, in the dark. Without holding onto anything. How he saw them, and couldn't see that his girlfriend and her iphone had left the bed is em.............

Tasden

robinph wrote: »

At 3am I think I'd just go and screw the formalities.

Is it a formality to announce when you're going to the toilet? :pac: really though, if I started announcing to my boyfriend that I'm going to the toilet regardless of the time he'd wonder wtf is wrong with me

I'm beginning to worry that god forbid anything ever happened to me people would find mine and my boyfriends interactions as suspicious!

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

He testified that he couldn't walk on the tiles without holding onto the wall. But, he could move two fans in, on his stumps, in the dark. Without holding onto anything. How he saw them, and couldn't see that his girlfriend and her iphone had left the bed is em.............

Was the tripod one just one leg outside so not a lot of "moving" as such? Dunno about the other one. Seeing something that's at a window with I'm assuming even a bit of light is different to seeing someone in a dark room.
Once again, I'm not saying he's telling the truth but I don't agree with the argument that its "unbelievable". Its plausible.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

He testified that he couldn't walk on the tiles without holding onto the wall. But, he could move two fans in, on his stumps, in the dark. Without holding onto anything. How he saw them, and couldn't see that his girlfriend and her iphone had left the bed is em.............

Have been stuck with immobilised legs for a while myself before. Certainly wouldn't be able to stand up properly unassisted, but perfectly possible to hop your way around a bedroom whilst not using crutches and could go from the side of the bed to the next wall and drag in a fan sized object without any bother, the fan itself would give support whist you drag it back in.

truedoom

i must be the only person in ireland who doesn't give a ****e about this haha.

Tasden

truedoom wrote: »

i must be the only person in ireland who doesn't give a ****e about this haha.

I was the same until I sat down with a cup of tea this morning after the school run and next thing I know its time to collect her from the school and I've been watching sky news all morning! :pac:

seamus

whatstherush wrote: »

So judging Oscars evidence today, you honestly don't find his story unbelievable?

I haven't been following the live trial, but it sounds like the story hasn't changed from the original hearing(s).

It's a series of events which would be unlikely to occur to most people, but each even taken in isolation is perfectly plausible and believable.

In probability you cannot retroactively look at a series of events and calculate a probability for that outcome having occurred.

If each event in isolation is probable, then a string of them occurring together is also probable.

Pumpkinseeds

Just speaking from personal experience here, but when you hear a noise during the night and you genuinely believe that there is an intruder in your house, the first thing you do is check where your loved ones are while you are on your mobile phoning the police.

Muff Richardson

robinph wrote: »

So just because his story doesn't sound quite right to you you therefore think he murdered her?.

ah hold on there for a sec...it's not that his story "doesn't sound quite right", its that it sounds f*cking ridiculous bordering on comical we're it not for the fact that somebody was killed/murdered.

seamus

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Just speaking from personal experience here, but when you hear a noise during the night and you genuinely believe that there is an intruder in your house, the first thing you do is check where your loved ones are while you are on your mobile phoning the police.

And in South Africa where intruders are likely to shoot you in the head and rape and murder your family before the police can even get there, the first thing you'd probably do is get your gun and try to lock the doors, then find out where your loved ones are and ring the police.

Personal experiences or "what I would do" from people living in Europe or even the US aren't really relevant here because we don't live in the same social reality that the wealthy in SA do. Whether that reality is partially media constructed is somewhat irrelevant; SA is a very dangerous place by our standards.

sopretty

seamus wrote: »

And in South Africa where intruders are likely to shoot you in the head and rape and murder your family before the police can even get there, the first thing you'd probably do is get your gun and try to lock the doors, then find out where your loved ones are and ring the police.

Personal experiences or "what I would do" from people living in Europe or even the US aren't really relevant here because we don't live in the same social reality that the wealthy in SA do. Whether that reality is partially media constructed is somewhat irrelevant; SA is a very dangerous place by our standards.

Human nature though, is the same the world over. If it was me, I'd find my daughter for example, ensure her safety first, then go challenge someone else. I wouldn't hear a noise in the bathroom, not check where my daughter was, and shoot through the bathroom and kill her.

whatstherush

seamus wrote: »

If each event in isolation is probable, then a string of them occurring together is also probable.

Yes but as that string of unprobable events occurring gets larger the probability of the whole sequence occurring decreases greatly

Pumpkinseeds

seamus wrote: »

And in South Africa where intruders are likely to shoot you in the head and rape and murder your family before the police can even get there, the first thing you'd probably do is get your gun and try to lock the doors, then find out where your loved ones are and ring the police.

Personal experiences or "what I would do" from people living in Europe or even the US aren't really relevant here because we don't live in the same social reality that the wealthy in SA do. Whether that reality is partially media constructed is somewhat irrelevant; SA is a very dangerous place by our standards.

Checking where your loved ones are prevents you shooting them though.

whatstherush

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Checking where your loved ones are prevents you shooting them though.

And it's not like it was a massive task for him to do that . He was at the bed getting his gun , and would have had to walk around it to get to bathroom. He can't see into a bed that he standing right beside, he can't just lift the blanket to remove any doubt. He says in his testimony he slowed down at this point. It's just ****ing unbelievable.

And your right seamus I haven't changed my mind since the second I heard this info in the bail hearing, the same way Robin hasn't changed theirs from their first post on this thread.

Da Shins Kelly

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Just speaking from personal experience here, but when you hear a noise during the night and you genuinely believe that there is an intruder in your house, the first thing you do is check where your loved ones are while you are on your mobile phoning the police.

And he said in court that he was telling her to call the police while getting his gun and all that. Did he not think there was anything strange when no one replied or moved in the bed?

That he would not notice at all that his girlfriend was not in the room just seems unbelievable to me.

sopretty

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

And he said in court that he was telling her to call the police while getting his gun and all that. Did he not think there was anything strange when no one replied or moved in the bed?

That he would not notice at all that his girlfriend was not in the room just seems unbelievable to me.

It's a completely fabricated account of events, to try to account for the screaming heard as being his. Not hers. Which would 'prove' :rolleyes: that it was plausible that he didn't know it was her in there, as she hadn't made a sound the whole time. So, of course he didn't know it was her!

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

And it's not like it was a massive task for him to do that . He was at the bed getting his gun , and would have had to walk around it to get to bathroom. He can't see into a bed that he standing right beside, he can't just lift the blanket to remove any doubt. He says in his testimony he slowed down at this point. It's just ****ing unbelievable.

Why would he need to confirm where she was, he was chatting to her seconds ago and she was in the bed?

whatstherush wrote: »

And your right seamus I haven't changed my mind since the second I heard this info in the bail hearing, the same way Robin hasn't changed theirs from their first post on this thread.

Quite happy to change my belief of him being not guilty if there is something to actually back up that. When the prosecutions opening statement is that they only have circumstantial evidence the case is not off to a very good start though.

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

Why would he need to confirm where she was, he was chatting to her seconds ago and she was in the bed?

Oh I don't know, maybe to rule out her as the source of the noises, something crazy like that.

robinph wrote: »

Quite happy to change my belief of him being not guilty if there is something to actually back up that. When the prosecutions opening statement is that they only have circumstantial evidence the case is not off to a very good start though.

That's not point, you had a view a year ago on this, so you didn't come into the trial with open mind as implied by seamus post that I was replying to. You would make as bad a juror as you acuse others of being.

Does Pistorius's crying remind anyone else of Uncle Albert here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdZLOyOmA-A

My name is URL

If he didn't know she was in the bathroom then why did he yell for her to 'get down' before firing into the bathroom? And why didn't he wait for her to respond? =/

I hope he doesn't walk free whatever happens. He should be charged with manslaughter at the very least.

seamus wrote: »

Personal experiences or "what I would do" from people living in Europe or even the US aren't really relevant here because we don't live in the same social reality that the wealthy in SA do. Whether that reality is partially media constructed is somewhat irrelevant; SA is a very dangerous place by our standards.

Absolutely. A woman is killed every 8 hours by their partners =p

sopretty

My name is URL wrote: »

If he didn't know she was in the bathroom then why did he yell for her to 'get down' before firing into the bathroom? And why didn't he wait for her to respond? =/

I hope he doesn't walk free whatever happens. He should be charged with manslaughter at the very least.

He 'apparently' told her to get down 'in the bedroom', where he believed she was....... It was an intruder in the bathroom you see....... :rolleyes:

Ann22

I've only watched today and yesterday's events, very little of up 'til now, just read the highlights.

It is very hard to believe he didn't check to see where the poor girl was before clamouring round the bedroom with a gun but imo it's equally hard to believe, he was lying in bed chatting calmly to his cousin, sober and sleepy with Reeva after passing loving and close text messages up 'til that day with her and yet a few hours later being so riled up to bash a door down and shoot her....surely there'd have been more violent incidents that would've been mentioned in the texts or by friends and family (or did I miss something?)

I wouldn't like to be that judge. I'm a big gullible eejit.. I was in tears listening to him sobbing.....All we know for sure is that he was trigger happy and hugely careless at the very least. Very sad for both families. She seemed like a lovely girl, considerate and gentle and he actually said she was unwilling to argue but would rather text her feelings.....how did they end up rowing so badly that night out of the blue? With no drink or drugs involved?

I'm well curious to hear the cross examination.

brimal

Trial has resumed now. Pistorius still on the stand.

I think the cross-examination will be soon, possibly this afternoon.

brimal

Cross-examination starting now.

Wow Nel is going in very aggressively from the start.

seamus

sopretty wrote: »

It's a completely fabricated account of events, to try to account for the screaming heard as being his. Not hers. Which would 'prove' :rolleyes: that it was plausible that he didn't know it was her in there, as she hadn't made a sound the whole time. So, of course he didn't know it was her!

What's the contradicting evidence, though? Genuine question; like I say I haven't been following this, so maybe there is. Whether you think his version of events is fabricated or not is somewhat irrelevant. As the only witness to what happened, it should be assumed that his version is closest to the truth, and the prosecution's job to provide evidence which contradicts his testimony.
For all of the people who claim his story is unbelievable, there's a remarkable lack of evidence which contradicts it.

whatstherush wrote: »

Oh I don't know, maybe to rule out her as the source of the noises, something crazy like that.

What you're doing there is adding what-ifs to the story, to justify your own disbelief.

My wife has done a similar thing; she went into the bathroom and while she was there I got up and went upstairs to check on the child. When I came back into the bedroom, she was stood frozen to the spot - she had come out of the bathroom, and not having heard me get up, was frozen with terror thinking that someone was banging around upstairs and was coming into the bedroom.

We don't have a big bedroom. A cursory glance to her left and she could have confirmed that in fact it was me upstairs. But fear took over and her brain assumed that the reality which existed before she went into the bathroom was the same reality after she came out.

To me, it's perfectly plausible that she went to the bathroom, when he came back in he heard a noise in the bathroom, and fear took over. Expecting rational actions from someone whose body is coursing with adrenaline and clouded with terror, is an irrational expectation.

Are questions like, "Why did he not see she was not in bed?", relevant? Absolutely. But not being able to answer these questions does not disprove his story.