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

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

That is a possible scenario.

However, she had her phone on her. If this argument was going on long enough for her to have run away to the loo, him to have battered the door with a cricket bat, then him to have fetched his gun ... would she not have phoned the police in that time?

We don't know she had her phone with her, we know the phone was found with her.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

We don't know she had her phone with her, we know the phone was found with her.

So now you are suggesting that he had moved the phones around after the event?

Ihatecuddles

Can I watch this on Sky?

sham69

robinph wrote: »

So now you are suggesting that he had moved the phones around after the event?

You should head over there to defend him , you're doing a better job than his own team...:D

sham69

mauzo! wrote: »

Can I watch this on Sky?

they show a recap every night on Sky News at 9:30 pm...

I listen to it every day on the bbc africa website.

Just google bbc africa in the mornings and you can listen to and see it live.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

So now you are suggesting that he had moved the phones around after the event?

Robinph - I have been trying to understand how you have been blindly loyal to OP. And now I notice that you are a moderator of the Athletics/Running forum! Explains a few things alright! Fan are you?

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

Fan are you?

Former.

I am a fan of justice being done though.

sham69

robinph wrote: »

Former.

I am a fan of justice being done though.

why are you defending him so....

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

So now you are suggesting that he had moved the phones around after the event?

I'm not suggesting anything. You asked how could someone just produce a gun and shoot their girlfriend and I gave you a very simple scenario that would fit in with your image of how psychos might go off the deep end. I am sure there are plenty more we could make up to fit the circumstances in the same way OP made up a defence to fit, IMHO, indefensible circumstances.

robinph

sham69 wrote: »

why are you defending him so....

Because there is no evidence to suggest pre-meditated murder.

There is plenty to show him a being a "crazy fool" who should not be let near guns, but nobody has any evidence to suggest murder.

The prosecutions opening statement said the same. They stated that they have nothing but circumstantial evidence. I do not believe that is enough to charge him with murder, and the alternative version of events that might have led up to murder would be an even more flimsy a story than OP's version. The prosecution haven't even come up with a version of what they think happened, all they have is that OP's story sounds a bit dodgy and that is not good enough for justice to be done.


There is also a major political slant to this now. Because the police screwed up and went for a murder charge there will probably now be riots if he isn't found guilty. If he is found guilty I really cannot see the sentence lasting long in an appeal hearing, then you have more rioting.
If the police had just stuck with the manslaughter charge it would be a whole lot better for everyone concerned.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Because there is no evidence to suggest pre-meditated murder.

There is plenty to show him a being a "crazy fool" who should not be let near guns, but nobody has any evidence to suggest murder.

The prosecutions opening statement said the same. They stated that they have nothing but circumstantial evidence. I do not believe that is enough to charge him with murder, and the alternative version of events that might have led up to murder would be an even more flimsy a story than OP's version. The prosecution haven't even come up with a version of what they think happened, all they have is that OP's story sounds a bit dodgy and that is not good enough for justice to be done.


There is also a major political slant to this now. Because the police screwed up and went for a murder charge there will probably now be riots if he isn't found guilty. If he is found guilty I really cannot see the sentence lasting long in an appeal hearing, then you have more rioting.
If the police had just stuck with the manslaughter charge it would be a whole lot better for everyone concerned.

You are believing his version of events as Gospel. Can you not see the lies and the holes and the impossibility, improbability in his version of events? Do you think that everything he says on the stand is the truth? Are you lacking in the capacity to think critically?

sham69

Because there is no evidence to suggest pre-meditated murder

I'm sure Mr. Nel is working his way to that...

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

You are believing his version of events as Gospel. Can you not see the lies and the holes and the impossibility, improbability in his version of events? Do you think that everything he says on the stand is the truth? Are you lacking in the capacity to think critically?

No, I see his version of events to be more believable than the alternative. Seeing as there isn't actually an alternative version been provided that is quite easy to do.

For a moment I discount his version of events completely... now tell me what the prosecution suggest actually happened?

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

No, I see his version of events to be more believable than the alternative. Seeing as there isn't actually an alternative version been provided that is quite easy to do.

For a moment I discount his version of events completely... now tell me what the prosecution suggest actually happened?

They can't suggest what happened. They can just discount his version of events, discount his testimony. They can pull it apart until it's proven beyond reasonable doubt to be nothing but a complete and utter fabrication.

gramar

robinph wrote: »

No, I see his version of events to be more believable than the alternative. Seeing as there isn't actually an alternative version been provided that is quite easy to do.

For a moment I discount his version of events completely... now tell me what the prosecution suggest actually happened?

They had an argument...she stormed out of the room and into the toilet...he lost the run of himself and shot her. A lot easier to explain than OP's roundabout version of events.

robinph

sham69 wrote: »

I'm sure Mr. Nel is working his way to that...

Except he isn't, his opening statement was that they didn't have anything other than circumstantial evidence. Unless something new has been discovered in the last couple of weeks all he has it to pull OP's story apart, they still don't have anything to point to murder.

sopretty

gramar wrote: »

They had an argument...she stormed out of the room and into the toilet...he lost the run of himself and shot her. A lot easier to explain than OP's roundabout version of events.

The only believable scenario!

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Except he isn't, his opening statement was that they didn't have anything other than circumstantial evidence. Unless something new has been discovered in the last couple of weeks all he has it to pull OP's story apart, they still don't have anything to point to murder.

Ach, I give up!!!!!!

sham69

gramar wrote: »

They had an argument...she stormed out of the room and into the toilet...he lost the run of himself and shot her. A lot easier to explain than OP's roundabout version of events.

Yeah, which is why he broke the door down with the bat..

Why didnt he look around the house to see where Reeva was if he didnt know where she was?

She could have been anywhere.
Why did he instantly think after shooting and going back to the bedroom that it was her in the bathroom?

robinph

gramar wrote: »

They had an argument...she stormed out of the room and into the toilet...he lost the run of himself and shot her. A lot easier to explain than OP's roundabout version of events.

But that wouldn't fit the physical evidence that was found.

I agree that it would make for a nice and simple explanation, but is there anything to suggest that OP goes straight for a gun when he's losing an argument with his girlfriend after lying in bed for a few hours?

Kristopherus

robinph wrote: »

But that wouldn't fit the physical evidence that was found.

I agree that it would make for a nice and simple explanation, but is there anything to suggest that OP goes straight for a gun when he's losing an argument with his girlfriend after lying in bed for a few hours?

Well that scenario is far more believable than the dross OP is saying. The only problem with it is that only OP can verify it.

gramar

robinph wrote: »

But that wouldn't fit the physical evidence that was found.

I agree that it would make for a nice and simple explanation, but is there anything to suggest that OP goes straight for a gun when he's losing an argument with his girlfriend after lying in bed for a few hours?

What physical evidence suggests it mightn't be the case? (genuine question ..not a challenge to prove me wrong!)

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

But that wouldn't fit the physical evidence that was found.

I agree that it would make for a nice and simple explanation, but is there anything to suggest that OP goes straight for a gun when he's losing an argument with his girlfriend after lying in bed for a few hours?

I love the way you can make assumption of what physical evidence a fight between two rational people would produce, but when people point how many things about Oscars story are irrational, well that doesn't matter a **** cause it's his story, so must be true.

sopretty

The circumstantial evidence so far comes from:

1. His ex. She said he was aggressive and angry.
2. He was reckless with guns
3. Reeva sent him a text saying that she was scared of him
4. Several witness testimonies of a woman screaming and an argument and shots being fired and further screaming from the woman.
5. Evidence that OP is a liar
6. Reeva asked him whether she could wear a leopard print dress
7. Two people gave evidence of him shooting out of the sun-roof - he denies this
8. He was willing for his friend to take the blame for him accidentally discharging a fire-arm in a restaurant
9. He was aware of the bullets which were in his gun. He denies knowledge of them. Video footage was shown of him discussing said bullets.
10. His ex explained his usual behaviour in terms of the side of the bed he slept on and his usual reaction if he was startled by a noise.


Will I go on? Cos I can!!!!!!!!!

That's enough to go on so far.

TeddyTedson

Is there a chance he'll be proved innocent do people reckon. There seems like an awful lot of evidence against his character but to prove it beyond reasonable doubt may be difficult. I imagine if proved innocent of murder he'll be serving time for manslaughter?

sopretty

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Is there a chance he'll be proved innocent do people reckon. There seems like an awful lot of evidence against his character but to prove it beyond reasonable doubt may be difficult. I imagine if proved innocent of murder he'll be serving time for manslaughter?

I hope he serves a long time either way for being a lying self-serving piece of *ahem.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

What physical evidence suggests it mightn't be the case? (genuine question ..not a challenge to prove me wrong!)

You'd expect to see some thrown around furniture or other stuff within the room, bruising on one or both of them, or something to do with things being moved in order to cover evidence, some reason from earlier in the night and phone messages that showed things were getting extremely bad in the relationship.

The fact that he was using the mistaken identity line right from when the first person arrived on the scene is fairly good evidence on his behalf. If he'd only just come up with that idea on his own you'd expect there to be inconsistencies in the story by the time it was tidied up with the lawyers over subsequent days. If it was a fight that went wrong was what happened it wouldn't be unexpected for him to have said that initially under the stress of the situation.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

You'd expect to see some thrown around furniture or other stuff within the room, bruising on one or both of them, or something to do with things being moved in order to cover evidence, some reason from earlier in the night and phone messages that showed things were getting extremely bad in the relationship.

The fact that he was using the mistaken identity line right from when the first person arrived on the scene is fairly good evidence on his behalf. If he'd only just come up with that idea on his own you'd expect there to be inconsistencies in the story by the time it was tidied up with the lawyers over subsequent days. If it was a fight that went wrong was what happened it wouldn't be unexpected for him to have said that initially under the stress of the situation.

I don't think it was a fight. I think it was a row. He frightened the bejeesus out of her. She sought refuge in the bathroom. He got his gun and shot her.

robinph

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Is there a chance he'll be proved innocent do people reckon. There seems like an awful lot of evidence against his character but to prove it beyond reasonable doubt may be difficult. I imagine if proved innocent of murder he'll be serving time for manslaughter?

I hope so to both questions.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

I don't think it was a fight. I think it was a row. He frightened the bejeesus out of her. She sought refuge in the bathroom. He got his gun and shot her.

But that makes not more sense than him not noticing that she wasn't in the bed still.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

You'd expect to see some thrown around furniture or other stuff within the room, bruising on one or both of them, or something to do with things being moved in order to cover evidence, some reason from earlier in the night and phone messages that showed things were getting extremely bad in the relationship.

The fact that he was using the mistaken identity line right from when the first person arrived on the scene is fairly good evidence on his behalf. If he'd only just come up with that idea on his own you'd expect there to be inconsistencies in the story by the time it was tidied up with the lawyers over subsequent days. If it was a fight that went wrong was what happened it wouldn't be unexpected for him to have said that initially under the stress of the situation.

If you have just murdered someone, your first instinct would be to concoct some story to save your ass.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

But that makes not more sense than him not noticing that she wasn't in the bed still.

Of course it does! He was jealous of her ex. He was jealous of her friendship with him. He was possessive of her. He made a show of her in public for talking to other people/guys. She had to ask him whether she could wear a particular dress (suggests he had outlawed or criticised her clothing before). He scared her. He scared his ex with his aggression and anger. He loved guns and was not afraid to use them. He viewed them as toys. He had a massive temper.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

You'd expect to see some thrown around furniture or other stuff within the room, bruising on one or both of them, or something to do with things being moved in order to cover evidence, some reason from earlier in the night and phone messages that showed things were getting extremely bad in the relationship.

The fact that he was using the mistaken identity line right from when the first person arrived on the scene is fairly good evidence on his behalf. If he'd only just come up with that idea on his own you'd expect there to be inconsistencies in the story by the time it was tidied up with the lawyers over subsequent days. If it was a fight that went wrong was what happened it wouldn't be unexpected for him to have said that initially under the stress of the situation.

Are you an expert on domestic violence too? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't OP 'forget' the password on his phone?

gramar

robinph wrote: »

You'd expect to see some thrown around furniture or other stuff within the room, bruising on one or both of them, or something to do with things being moved in order to cover evidence, some reason from earlier in the night and phone messages that showed things were getting extremely bad in the relationship.

The fact that he was using the mistaken identity line right from when the first person arrived on the scene is fairly good evidence on his behalf. If he'd only just come up with that idea on his own you'd expect there to be inconsistencies in the story by the time it was tidied up with the lawyers over subsequent days. If it was a fight that went wrong was what happened it wouldn't be unexpected for him to have said that initially under the stress of the situation.

So you're saying that there is a lack of physical evidence. I get your point but not all rows involve things being thrown or people coming to blows.

What I would have thought is that if there had been a row and she stormed off angry and upset that there would have been tear stains on her face. I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that this would have been the case and it would lend creedence to a row before the shooting as opposed to her being shot completely unexpecting it.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

Are you an expert on domestic violence too? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't OP 'forget' the password on his phone?

Nope, are you an expert in wandering around dark rooms on amputated legs? What has the phone password got to do with anything?

sopretty

gramar wrote: »

not all rows involve things being thrown or people coming to blows.

Particularly not when you've a gun to blast their brains out instead.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

So you're saying that there is a lack of physical evidence. I get your point but not all rows involve things being thrown or people coming to blows.

What I would have thought is that if there had been a row and she stormed off angry and upset that there would have been tear stains on her face. I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that this would have been the case and it would lend creedence to a row before the shooting as opposed to her being shot completely unexpecting it.

Agreed, the lack of evidence of a fight doesn't prove that it didn't happen. But at the same time his story seeming unlikely doesn't prove that it did happen.

If there were tear stains then that would back up a claim of there having been a fight.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

Nope, are you an expert in wandering around dark rooms on amputated legs? What has the phone password got to do with anything?

I have a recollection that OP's Iphone was sent away to see if it could be unlocked. Any email / text / phone contact Op had before / during and, especially, after he killed Reeva would be hugely significant. How tragic he can't remember his password, he might be able to support his innocence claim.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Agreed, the lack of evidence of a fight doesn't prove that it didn't happen. But at the same time his story seeming unlikely doesn't prove that it did happen.

If there were tear stains then that would back up a claim of there having been a fight.

From what I've heard, her entire head was blasted away. Hard to locate a tear stain.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

I have a recollection that OP's Iphone was sent away to see if it could be unlocked. Any email / text / phone contact Op had before / during and, especially, after he killed Reeva would be hugely significant. How tragic he can't remember his password, he might be able to support his innocence claim.

They got that unlocked and accessed all the data.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

They got that unlocked and accessed all the data.

Including her text to him stating that he scared her.

gramar

sopretty wrote: »

From what I've heard, her entire head was blasted away. Hard to locate a tear stain.

That also occurred to me.

The fact that he shot her while on his stumps also suggests to me that he shot her in a rage. If you fly into a rage and are going to grab a gun and shoot someone you don't stop to strap you legs on.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

From what I've heard, her entire head was blasted away. Hard to locate a tear stain.

Unfortunalty, I was actually watching when they showed the picture earlier on the live stream. :eek: Part of the back of the head appeared to be missing, but her face was still very much there. I don't think they would have been looking for something like a tear stain anyway, but that was just being used as an example by gramar.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

That also occurred to me.

The fact that he shot her while on his stumps also suggests to me that he shot her in a rage. If you fly into a rage and are going to grab a gun and shoot someone you don't stop to strap you legs on.

Or if you think there is an intruder in your bathroom?

gramar

robinph wrote: »

Unfortunalty, I was actually watching when they showed the picture earlier on the live stream. :eek: Part of the back of the head appeared to be missing, but her face was still very much there. I don't think they would have been looking for something like a tear stain anyway, but that was just being used as an example by gramar.

I don't want to sidetrack the debate but evidence of her crying would clearly suggest a row and if that had been detected it would seriously undermine his evidence of them being asleep. There hasn't been mention of this so I assume that there either was none or it was overlooked.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Or if you think there is an intruder in your bathroom?

If you feel vulnerable on your stumps, you'd put on your prosthetics before venturing after an intruder. If you know you're in no danger from your girlfriend, then yes, you'd fly into a rage and go after her armed with your gun.

gramar

robinph wrote: »

Or if you think there is an intruder in your bathroom?

quite correct. My point is that initially the prosecution were hoping to prove he had his legs on to show premeditation whereas a it would also suggest someone flying into a rage during an argument where she ran off upset and he lost the rag and grabbed the gun.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

quite correct. My point is that initially the prosecution were hoping to prove he had his legs on to show premeditation whereas a it would also suggest someone flying into a rage during an argument where she ran off upset and he lost the rag and grabbed the gun.

Agreed.

Deise Vu

gramar wrote: »

I don't want to sidetrack the debate but evidence of her crying would clearly suggest a row and if that had been detected it would seriously undermine his evidence of them being asleep. There hasn't been mention of this so I assume that there either was none or it was overlooked.

OP seems to be the one prone to tears in that relationship. Absence of tears doesn't mean absence of row.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

If you feel vulnerable on your stumps, you'd put on your prosthetics before venturing after an intruder. If you know you're in no danger from your girlfriend, then yes, you'd fly into a rage and go after her armed with your gun.

Alternatively, if your feeling vulnerable from an intruder you do the quicker thing and just get the gun and go after them, but if your in a rage with the girlfriend you might sit around and put the legs on to bring yourself up to a more commanding position, after all you know she is not going anywhere whilst you mess with the legs and you have time to compose your argument whilst she crys in the bathroom.