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

sopretty

Deise Vu wrote: »

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

It's bizarre to think that she would have been crying if in an argument and scared. Fight or flight instinct kicks in. Not some sort of self-pity where you cry.

Mia A

I was watching the live feed earlier today and he kept reiterating that killing her was a mistake and he is only human. It really annoyed me how flippant he was and evidently it bothered the prosecutor who rightly so told him to take responsibility for his actions. Either way he shot to kill

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

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.

He waddles on his stumps and is unstable on them. It would have taken him seconds to put on his prosthetics. Unless........................ he wasn't afraid...........

gramar

Deise Vu wrote: »

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

Again I agree...there may well have been none and if there had been they mign't have been spotted. Just a thought I ahd is all.

As for the legs...he says he always felt vulberable on his stumps but I imagine he was still quite agile none the less.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

It's bizarre to think that she would have been crying if in an argument and scared. Fight or flight instinct kicks in. Not some sort of self-pity where you cry.

So how does that fit with her going and locking herself in the toilet? If she's scared such that fight or flight instinct has kicked in then the logical thing to do is get out of the house, not lock yourself in the smallest room to try and get away from a bloke with a gun.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

So how does that fit with her going and locking herself in the toilet? If she's scared such that fight or flight instinct has kicked in then the logical thing to do is get out of the house, not lock yourself in the smallest room to try and get away from a bloke with a gun.

Oh lord bless us.

robinph

Mia A wrote: »

I was watching the live feed earlier today and he kept reiterating that killing her was a mistake and he is only human. It really annoyed me how flippant he was and evidently it bothered the prosecutor who rightly so told him to take responsibility for his actions. Either way he shot to kill

How is him saying from the outset that he shot her and it's his fault not him taking responsibility for his actions?

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

Oh lord bless us.

Please just come up with a sequence of events for what happened that isn't more daft than OP's version.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Please just come up with a sequence of events for what happened that isn't more daft than OP's version.

I don't have to. As things stand, the coroner stated that his testimony didn't tie in with his timeline, both in the times her phone was being used, and in the time she last ate.

ETA: Is it plausible, that he fell asleep between 9 and 10pm, and she was still awake on her phone 5 to 6 hours later? If his timeline of events is correct?

gramar

robinph wrote: »

So how does that fit with her going and locking herself in the toilet? If she's scared such that fight or flight instinct has kicked in then the logical thing to do is get out of the house, not lock yourself in the smallest room to try and get away from a bloke with a gun.

If he was on his stumps and she was really in fear it would have made sense for her to run down the stairs and get away from him but she may have been close to the toilet and looked for the closest place of refuge.

She may also have gone into the toilet not expecting him to follow her.

As a slightly annoying Paul Brady song from years back says 'nobody knows'.

sopretty

gramar wrote: »

If he was on his stumps and she was really in fear it would have made sense for her to run down the stairs and get away from him but she may have been close to the toilet and looked for the closest place of refuge.

She may also have gone into the toilet not expecting him to follow her.

As a slightly annoying Paul Brady song from years back says 'nobody knows'.

He had the bedroom door locked from the inside and a cricket bat lodged in the gap of the door.
If someone is coming after you (on stumps or not) with a gun, you get a wall between you. You don't take the time to dislodge a cricket bat from a door and turn a key while a gun is trained on you. (I'm guessing).

gramar

sopretty wrote: »

He had the bedroom door locked from the inside and a cricket bat lodged in the gap of the door.

Seriously?

sopretty

gramar wrote: »

Seriously?

Honestly! By his own testimony.

gramar

sopretty wrote: »

Honestly! By his own testimony.

Now would that be because he didn't want someone to get in or someone to get out?

MadYaker

I don't understand why this is getting so much attention in Ireland, am I missing something? Its just a murder trial. Is it because it's televised? I know that almost never happens for trials.

sopretty

gramar wrote: »

Now would that be because he didn't want someone to get in or someone to get out?

According to him, it was because he was afraid that someone might get into the room. He said that the doors were very brittle and he had trouble with locks. He then went on to say (idiot) that as the evening was warm, he knew the wood would contract (anyone with half a brain knows that wood swells in heat). Anyway, for that reason, he jammed a cricket bat in the door jam. In case anyone might break in like.

Clearly, it's more logical that he tried to lock Reeva in to the room and jammed the door with the cricket bat. But sure.......... that would be logical, eh?

Cross-examination is going to be fun.

sopretty

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't understand why this is getting so much attention in Ireland, am I missing something? Its just a murder trial. Is it because it's televised? I know that almost never happens for trials.

Yes, the fact that it's televised makes for more interesting TV than the usual daytime menu.

Mia A

robinph wrote: »

How is him saying from the outset that he shot her and it's his fault not him taking responsibility for his actions?

His refusal to actually say it is in my opinion not accepting responsibility. He kept repeating "I made a mistake" and when Pistorius was asked to say he "shot and killed her" he refused. Aswell as that he said "I did not intend to kill Reeva or anyone else for that matter" if that was true why did he shoot numerous times when the person was trapped in the bathroom with no where else to go?

Sierra Oscar

sopretty wrote: »

Cross-examination is going to be fun.

It will be interesting to see if he keeps his composure during the next phase of the cross examination, and how the judge reacts if he does not. You can tell that the prosecution team is getting weary of all of the adjournments due to emotional issues, it is really interruption the flow of the cross-examination.

Fanny Brioscaí

Mia A wrote: »

His refusal to actually say it is in my opinion not accepting responsibility. He kept repeating "I made a mistake" and when Pistorius was asked to say he "shot and killed her" he refused. Aswell as that he said "I did not intend to kill Reeva or anyone else for that matter" if that was true why did he shoot numerous times when the person was trapped in the bathroom with no where else to go?

because he didn't know the person behind the door was his girlfriend and not a intruder who may well have being armed with a gun.

sopretty

Quaint wrote: »

because he didn't know the person behind the door was his girlfriend and not a intruder who may well have being armed with a gun.

Ah....... that old nugget........ *Bangs head off screen.

Deise Vu

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if he keeps his composure during the next phase of the cross examination, and how the judge reacts if he does not. You can tell that the prosecution team is getting weary of all of the adjournments due to emotional issues, it is really interruption the flow of the cross-examination.

I'm not watching live. Is he getting to leave the witness box to 'compose' himself?

sopretty

Deise Vu wrote: »

I'm not watching live. Is he getting to leave the witness box to 'compose' himself?

Yes; And 2 days cut short.

Deise Vu

sopretty wrote: »

Yes; And 2 days cut short.

That is ridiculous and I imagine the Judge will see it for what it is: an opportunity to consult with his legal team in the middle of cross-examination. Even OJ's team didn't think of that one.

sopretty

Deise Vu wrote: »

That is ridiculous and I imagine the Judge will see it for what it is: an opportunity to consult with his legal team in the middle of cross-examination. Even OJ's team didn't think of that one.

She actually seems quite sympathetic to him.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

Ah....... that old nugget........ *Bangs head off screen.

Yet you have nothing to suggest that he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

*Bangs head off screen *

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Yet you have nothing to suggest that he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

*Bangs head off screen *

She was screaming?

weldoninhio

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.

He has already said that they were both awake. Reeva was sitting up in bed on her phone.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

She was screaming?

No, we just have that screams were heard before the shooting.

That could have been Reeva.
It also could have been OP screaming at the intruder.

We have no way of knowing which it was. Just that there was screaming before the shooting.

If it was Reeva then it looks like murder.
If it was OP shouting to the intruder to get out of the house a then that still makes sense for Reeva to have kept quiet and hidden in the loo.

Either is possible.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

No, we just have that screams were heard before the shooting.

That could have been Reeva.
It also could have been OP screaming at the intruder.

We have no way of knowing which it was. Just that there was screaming before the shooting.

If it was Reeva then it looks like murder.
If it was OP shouting to the intruder to get out of the house a then that still makes sense for Reeva to have kept quiet and hidden in the loo.

Either is possible.

Every single witness under cross examination was unequivocal that it was a female voice and screams.

sentient_6

I real wish they'd stop playing exerts on the radio of this prick whinging on the stand, his fake, weak, half crying moaning voice is pathetic.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

Every single witness under cross examination was unequivocal that it was a female voice and screams.

They also claimed that they knew the difference between cricket bats hitting doors and gunshots.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

They also claimed that they knew the difference between cricket bats hitting doors and gunshots.

Look, believe what you want to believe. I'm refusing to engage with someone so irrevocably staunch in their conviction. Please don't direct any further questions towards me as I will not answer them.

upstairs for coffee

robinph wrote: »

They also claimed that they knew the difference between cricket bats hitting doors and gunshots.

Why are you so determined in your view that Pistorious is innocent of murder?

Stargate

Awww he got a fright from a noise coming from the toilet , that explains it all . It was an accident . Poor fella .

Doing an excellent job crying now it must be said . I'm worried the judge will have pity on his cry-baby act.

His loaded gun, the one that went off by accident 4 times with " Black Talon bullets " ( which you see him shot in the video ) were/are designed to blow your fookin head off , not to injure someone.

He says he didn't mean to kill anyone but shot 4 bullets into a bathroom door without asking who was in there ??

As for his story , Every single person i spoke with re this case , ALL said they would check to see WHERE the family are before doing anything .

For me , he is lying and i cant wait for Prosecutor Gerrie Nel to tear him to pieces tomorrow.

Tasden

Stargate wrote: »

As for his story , Every single person i spoke with re this case , ALL said they would check to see WHERE the family are before doing anything .

Yep because everyone has first hand experience of being in that position and knows exactly how they'd react at that exact moment in time.

We all know how we think we'd act or how we'd like to behave in those circumstances but none of us can say how we would actually act if we found ourselves in that position, particularly in SA and in his unique situation of being vulnerable without his legs.

IF that is what happened obviously.

robinph

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Why are you so determined in your view that Pistorious is innocent of murder?

I am not convinced that he is innocent, and the court will not find him innocent either. The decision that the court has to make is if he is guilty. If they find him not guilty that is not the same as saying he is innocent.

I do not believe that it would be a safe conviction for them to find him guilty on the evidence available.

robinph

Tasden wrote: »

Yep because everyone has first hand experience of being in that position and knows exactly how they'd react at that exact moment in time.

We all know how we think we'd act or how we'd like to behave in those circumstances but none of us can say how we would actually act if we found ourselves in that position, particularly in SA and in his unique situation of being vulnerable without his legs.

IF that is what happened obviously.

I'm sure that if you asked the last guy in this video before hand what he would do in this situation he would not have said throw the missus on the floor, leave her behind and get the hell out of there.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83986526/

Lord Trollington

robinph wrote: »

I do not believe that it would be a safe conviction for them to find him guilty on the evidence available.

You've said that on more than one occassion on this thread.

He is guilty of killing Reeva, that there is no doubt. The thing the court has to establish is intent or was it premeditated.

Now his incoherent and at times laughable story has changed on numerous occasions. Notwithstanding the fact that it has changed from one implausible story to another. Nel tripped him up on numerous occasions today and that is just his first day on the stand. There could be many more days of this yet.

I think by the end of him on the stand we will see that whilst there might not be any concrete evidence (as only OP knows his intent) it will be fairly apparent that he did indeed murder her.

Will it be enough for a sound conviction. Who knows.

Dermighty

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Why are you so determined in your view that Pistorious is innocent of murder?

Maybe he is Pistorius...

robinph

robinph wrote: »

I do not believe that it would be a safe conviction for them to find him guilty on the evidence available.

Indeed. I don't like Oscar P, the character portrait that's been drawn leads me to believe that he was probably possessive, argumentative, attention seeking, and has a very nasty temper. I think they probably argued and he lost control and fired through the door, knowing Reeva was in there. That's what my gut tells me.

Luckily for all of us though, it takes more than a gut feeling and an impression of someone to convict them of murder, because what there isn't, so far, is any compelling evidence that he knew Reeva was cowering behind that door and that he decided to kill her. He admits to killing her and I haven't been convinced that it wasn't accidental, regardless of how unlikeable the guy is.

On the evidence on offer at the moment, any conviction might be deserved, but it would be unsafe.

sopretty

Candie wrote: »

Indeed. I don't like Oscar P, the character portrait that's been drawn leads me to believe that he was probably possessive, argumentative, attention seeking, and has a very nasty temper. I think they probably argued and he lost control and fired through the door, knowing Reeva was in there. That's what my gut tells me.

Luckily for all of us though, it takes more than a gut feeling and an impression of someone to convict them of murder, because what there isn't, so far, is any compelling evidence that he knew Reeva was cowering behind that door and that he decided to kill her. He admits to killing her and I haven't been convinced that it wasn't accidental, regardless of how unlikeable the guy is.

On the evidence on offer at the moment, any conviction might be deserved, but it would be unsafe.

The trial is only half way through. Tell us how unsafe a conviction is once the evidence has concluded. :rolleyes:

sopretty

sopretty wrote: »

The trial is only half way through. Tell us how unsafe a conviction is once the evidence has concluded. :rolleyes:

What's up with the rolleyes?

If you read my post again, you'll see I specifically referred to the evidence we have at the moment.

If more compelling evidence points to his guilt I'll be delighted to see him locked up, as I think he probably did it. Thinking he did it and thinking it's okay to convict him on insufficient convincing evidence are two different things though.

amdublin

sentient_6 wrote: »

I real wish they'd stop playing exerts on the radio of this prick whinging on the stand, his fake, weak, half crying moaning voice is pathetic.

He's not doing himself any favours. Just speak and tell us what happened. Stop all the amateur dramatics

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

The trial is only half way through. Tell us how unsafe a conviction is once the evidence has concluded. :rolleyes:

The prosecution has already given their case, all they are doing now is picking holes in the story. Unless they manage to get him to confess during cross examination then I can't see what new evidence could be found.

Da Shins Kelly

sentient_6 wrote: »

I real wish they'd stop playing exerts on the radio of this prick whinging on the stand, his fake, weak, half crying moaning voice is pathetic.

Givin' 'em the ol' razzle dazzle!

sopretty

I feel Reeva's mother is unbelievably stoic. It must be heart-breaking for her. I have a daughter. If I had to sit through such a trial, I'm not sure I could be so strong. Well, I probably would, if I felt that it was critical for me to compose myself in court. At home............? I would break down. I'd say it is all that poor mother can do, is to go home, eat, try to sleep, and turn up again in court on behalf of her daughter.

Ann22

I don't know what to think. I think he's coming across as very credible. Cant believe after hearing all the texts thay he would've shot her. If he had done it would he have rung for help so quickly?

The two rows they mentioned are typical of the ones me and my hubby have had many times over the years. He too would go into silent moods..but has a lot of self control and would never show violence. Especially sober.

I find I'm believing him. Afraid to admit it to anyone except you guys though!

sopretty

Ann22 wrote: »

I don't know what to think. I think he's coming across as very credible. Cant believe after hearing all the texts thay he would've shot her. If he had done it would he have rung for help so quickly?

The two rows they mentioned are typical of the ones me and my hubby have had many times over the years. He too would go into silent moods..but has a lot of self control and would never show violence. Especially sober.

I find I'm believing him. Afraid to admit it to anyone except you guys though!

They had contact other than texts. Real life contact. Which puts the texts in context. Have you ever texted your hubby telling him that he scared you?

cynicalcough

I'm also inclined to go with his version of events. Coming into the trial I thought his story was so far fetched that I was quite convinced of his guilt. There's a few main reasons why

The main one is the fact that he wasn't wearing his prostheses when he shot. The image of him not at his full height during a heated argument which ultimately led to murder just dosen't add up for me. If you're arguing you want to appear dominant and powerful which would be difficult id imaging if you are looking up at your girlfriend.

He has not wavered from his initial story from minutes after the accident to the trial. There has been no evidence presented which firmly and conclusively contradicts his version of events

The circumstantial evidence - that he was a hot head, trigger happy and insecure individual for me this tallies just as much with someone who shot without thinking when he felt threatened by a perceived intruder

He has publicly document evidence of overreacting in a similar scenario on his twitter where he wrote about going into 'full commando mode' after noises from his washing machine.

Again I found his version completely far fetched but I'm coming to realise this may be because I am not a man with easy access to guns, feeling particularly vulnerable due to a disability living in a country that averages 46 murders per day. So idiot yes, culpable homocide, absolutely but murder, no.