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

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Since when is person's state of dress evidence of murder?

I could be wrong but I think I read that what she was wearing were shorts and a string or vest top - not at all unusual. Plenty of women, this one included, wear that to be.

So she was wearing the same thing in bed that night as I was wearing last night. I suppose that would be considered fully dressed in SA where it's hot.

Of course, even if she was wearing a full length mink coat, it still doesn't prove or even indicate that Oscar Pistorius shot through the door intending to murder her. Has zero to do with his intent.

Sierra Oscar

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Since when is person's state of dress evidence of murder?

Where did I say it was? Chill.

Just making the point that it is odd. We have people here trying to explain how it would be normal. I could equally try and argue that if she was fully clothed then she could have been getting ready to leave following an argument. I can't find much information on what exactly she was wearing though, but I would assume it was something the prosecution team looked into.

AudreyHepburn

Candie wrote: »

So she was wearing the same thing in bed that night as I was wearing last night. I suppose that would be considered fully dressed in SA where it's hot.

Of course, even if she was wearing a full length mink coat, it still doesn't prove or even indicate that Oscar Pistorius shot through the door intending to murder her. Has zero to do with his intent.

Agreed. At this point I think some people are just looking for reasons to disbelieve him.

I will admit he got a bit tongue tied today but that still doesn't necessarily mean he's lying. He's under incredible stress, he's upset and Gerrie Nel's cross examination was rigorous to say the least. It's quite possible he just flustered and mixed up.

sopretty

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Agreed. At this point I think some people are just looking for reasons to disbelieve him.

I will admit he got a bit tongue tied today but that still doesn't necessarily mean he's lying. He's under incredible stress, he's upset and Gerrie Nel's cross examination was rigorous to say the least. It's quite possible he just flustered and mixed up.

I don't think the prosecution has used her state of dress in the case (so far anyway?)

AudreyHepburn

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Where did I say it was? Chill.

Just making the point that it is odd. We have people here trying to explain how it would be normal. I could equally try and argue that if she was fully clothed then she could have been getting ready to leave following an argument. I can't find much information on what exactly she was wearing though, but I would assume it was something the prosecution team looked into.

I'm perfectly chilled out thanks!

I just felt it was implicit in the post. If you didn't feel it might be relevent to his intent why bother bringing it up?

AudreyHepburn

sopretty wrote: »

I don't think the prosecution has used her state of dress in the case (so far anyway?)

They haven't no. I was just replying to a post.

namloc1980

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Agreed. At this point I think some people are just looking for reasons to disbelieve him.

I will admit he got a bit tongue tied today but that still doesn't necessarily mean he's lying. He's under incredible stress, he's upset and Gerrie Nel's cross examination was rigorous to say the least. It's quite possible he just flustered and mixed up.

Or it's even more possible he's lying. He stated he never ever shouted or screamed at his former girlfriend. Yet she testified earlier in the trial as to his temper and that he did shout at her. Nel asked if OP was right that she was lying why didn't his lawyer quiz her about it when she testified. OP didn't know and Nel successfully showed that by not quizzing her on it that they were satisfied with her evidence in that regard... i.e. he lied.

FactCheck

Could somebody clarify something for me? Not a trick question or what have you, I genuinely am not clear.

Is this OP's story: he woke up. Reeva was awake in the bed beside him, on her phone. He moved to the balcony. He heard something in the bathroom. He got his gun from under his side of the bed. He didn't notice she was no longer in the bed (despite the fact that seconds earlier she had been sitting there awake on her phone). He crossed the room to the toilet door and shot at it reflexively in fear when he thought it was about to open.

I had thought initially that the story was Reeva was asleep when he woke up, which makes the story slightly more plausible. But I don't see how he could have seen her awake one minute and literally seconds later, just a couple of feet away from her, not realised she was no longer sitting there.

That's aside from the testimony of the neighbours (4 or 5 neighbours).

Again I'm not trying to have a go, just honestly not sure if this is what he's saying because in the beginning I thought the story was she was asleep? Did the story change at all or was it just misreported?

AudreyHepburn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Or it's even more possible he's lying. He stated he never ever shouted or screamed at his former girlfriend. Yet she testified earlier in the trial as to his temper and that he did shout at her. Nel asked if OP was right that she was lying why didn't his lawyer quiz her about it when she testified. OP didn't know and Nel successfully showed that by not quizzing her on it that they were satisfied with her evidence in that regard... i.e. he lied.

Where is the evidence of that though? We only have her word.

She is ex and we know she isn't his biggest fan so she's hardly going to say anything complimentry about him is she?

namloc1980

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Where is the evidence of that though? We only have her word.

She is ex and we know she isn't his biggest fan so she's hardly going to say anything complimentry about him is she?

Why didn't his lawyer quiz her on it? They accepted her evidence.

AudreyHepburn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why didn't his lawyer quiz her on it? They accepted her evidence.

That I couldn't possibly say, you'd have to ask them.

Perhaps they just didn't attach much importance to it for the reason I gave above? Or maybe it is true. Who knows.

It's still not enough to convict OP of murder.

snubbleste

Free advertising for Ipad

namloc1980

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That I couldn't possibly say, you'd have to ask them.

Perhaps they just didn't attach much importance to it for the reason I gave above? Or maybe it is true. Who knows.

It's still not enough to convict OP of murder.

Who said it was enough to convict? But it does build evidence against his character that he's ill tempered and quick to anger. That's pretty important evidence in this case and if his lawyer decided it wasn't important then OP needs a new team fast.

Tasden

Can I ask, how come he answers with m'lady at end of every sentence, I know that's how they address the judge but he says it when he's answering other peoples questions.

snubbleste

Tasden wrote: »

Can I ask, how come he answers with m'lady at end of every sentence, I know that's how they address the judge but he says it when he's answering other peoples questions.

Because all the answers to the questions are aimed at the judge. It is exceedingly polite.

ninebeanrows

The duvet!

Tasden

snubbleste wrote: »

Because all the answers to the questions are aimed at the judge. It is exceedingly polite.

Ok I get ya, he is directing them at her so he addresses her. Just seems excessive compared to others

snubbleste

Weathercheck wrote: »

The duvet!

It has a starring role!

ninebeanrows

Oh he's getting eaten here.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Where is the evidence of that though? We only have her word.

She is ex and we know she isn't his biggest fan so she's hardly going to say anything complimentry about him is she?

Well to be fair, she'd have to be exceptionally evil to lie on the stand with a view to getting him unfairly convicted of murder.

He's not a nice guy, no doubt about it. Doesn't make him a killer, but it makes it look more probable as it all adds up to an unflattering character portrait.

You can't convict him of murder on the basis of being a bit of a sh!t though.

123balltv

'Reeva call the police' hes only a few feet away from her she never answered
hey like Oscar im in the toilet.
Know wonder the court keep laughing hes lying in my opinion.

namloc1980

123balltv wrote: »

'Reeva call the police' hes only a few feet away from her she never answered
hey like Oscar im in the toilet.
Know wonder the court keep laughing hes lying in my opinion.

His story is being shredded by Nel. His story just doesn't add up.

upstairs for coffee

Pistorious is very frustrating with his "m'lady".

"Your version is so improbable that no one would believe it to be true" - Prosecutor.

Pistorious coming across as a cocky little prick

AudreyHepburn

Candie wrote: »

Well to be fair, she'd have to be exceptionally evil to lie on the stand with a view to getting him unfairly convicted of murder.

He's not a nice guy, no doubt about it. Doesn't make him a killer, but it makes it look more probable as it all adds up to an unflattering character portrait.

You can't convict him of murder on the basis of being a bit of a sh!t though.

That's not what I meant at all. I just meant it's not that surprising that she'd having nothing nice to say about him....she's his ex and a bitter ex at that by sounds of it.

I'm not sure if he's the horrible person he's being made out to be either tbh. A lot of that is just hearsay, we really have no concrete proof.

Knob Longman

Oscar isn't exactly the brightest of defendants.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That's not what I meant at all. I just meant it's not that surprising that she'd having nothing nice to say about him....she's his ex and a bitter ex at that by sounds of it.

I'm not sure if he's the horrible person he's being made out to be either tbh. A lot of that is just hearsay, we really have no concrete proof.

I dunno, the picture being constructed shows him to have a lot of nasty traits, although it's likely exaggerated and contextually biased. My own feeling is that he's a pretty unlikeable guy, but again, that doesn't make him a murderer.

I don't have to like him to think he should be found not guilty, I don't even have to think he's innocent. I just think that - so far - there isn't enough evidence to convict the guy safely.

sopretty

Knob Longman wrote: »

Oscar isn't exactly the brightest of defendants.

His temper is going to come out in cross-examination I feel. He almost let it loose on a couple of occasions today!

upstairs for coffee

"
Oscaar Pistorius's account of the events of the night on which he killed Reeva Steenkamp, given at his bail hearing, differs from his plea explanation yesterday.
Version 1:

• After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep;
• I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in [one fan];
• I noticed that the bathroom window was open; and
• I heard movement inside the toilet.

Version 2:

• I had shortly before [going onto the balcony] spoken to Reeva, who was in bed beside me;
• [During the early hours], I brought two fans in from the balcony;
• I heard the bathroom window sliding open; and
• The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet."

Ash.J.Williams

Candie wrote: »

I dunno, the picture being constructed shows him to have a lot of nasty traits, although it's likely exaggerated and contextually biased. My own feeling is that he's a pretty unlikeable guy, but again, that doesn't make him a murderer.

I don't have to like him to think he should be found not guilty, I don't even have to think he's innocent. I just think that - so far - there isn't enough evidence to convict the guy safely.

he pumped a bathroom full of bullets without checking on his missus that makes him guilty...

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

he pumped a bathroom full of bullets without checking on his missus that makes him guilty...

No, his intent is what makes him guilty or not.

We know he killed her, we don't know if he murdered her.

sopretty

Candie wrote: »

No, his intent

we don't know if he murdered her.

Ah, but we do. :pac:

Kristopherus

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

"
Oscaar Pistorius's account of the events of the night on which he killed Reeva Steenkamp, given at his bail hearing, differs from his plea explanation yesterday.
Version 1:

• After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep;
• I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in [one fan];
• I noticed that the bathroom window was open; and
• I heard movement inside the toilet.

Version 2:

• I had shortly before [going onto the balcony] spoken to Reeva,Had a blazing row with Reeva who was in bed beside me;
• [During the early hours], I brought two fans in from the balcony;
• I heard the bathroom window sliding open; and
• The discharging of my firearm was precipitatedby Reeva running into the toilet and screaming at me in the toilet."

Fixed that for ya:)

sopretty

sopretty wrote: »

Ah, but we do. :pac:

I think he probably did.

But I don't think the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt just yet. It is getting close to it, but it's not there yet.

sopretty

Candie wrote: »

I think he probably did.

But I don't think the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt just yet. It is getting close to it, but it's not there yet.

It will get there.

The judge is very careful in how he is treated and how the court is treated. I think she wants to ensure that there is no question of an unfair trial.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

It will get there.

The judge is very careful in how he is treated and how the court is treated. I think she wants to ensure that there is no question of an unfair trial.

The judge is very professional

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

The judge is very professional

Quite a responsibility on her shoulders in fairness.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

Quite a responsibility on her shoulders in fairness.

She's handling it so well though, respectful to everyone without being harsh

I think footage of that judges demeanour and vigilance should be used as a training tool. She's very impressive.

robinph

Apparently the extra people either side of the judge would often be lay-people, but in this case they have a couple of legally qualified people overseeing proceedings and the judgement of the judge. It is way bigger than just the case on it's own, but the risk of having an unsafe conviction or not-guilty verdict is potentially massive for SA if it then gets overturned.

sopretty

robinph wrote: »

Apparently the extra people either side of the judge would often be lay-people, but in this case they have a couple of legally qualified people overseeing proceedings and the judgement of the judge. It is way bigger than just the case on it's own, but the risk of having an unsafe conviction or not-guilty verdict is potentially massive for SA if it then gets overturned.

She appears to be extremely cognisant of that.

AudreyHepburn

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

he pumped a bathroom full of bullets without checking on his missus that makes him guilty...

Guilty of being reckless and stupid, of committing manslaughter yes. But not guilty of murder.

sopretty

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Guilty of being reckless and stupid, of committing manslaughter yes. But not guilty of murder.

So you have found him not guilty?

Jesus Wept

brimal wrote: »

So OP is denying he fired the gun in the restaurant, despite OP saying it was in his hand, OP agreeing the gun cannot fire unless the trigger was pressed, despite Roux not cross-examining the expert who claimed this, etc.

He would be better off just admitting he fired it by accident. This farcical refusal to accept responsibility and refuse to give a straight answer will add a bit of cynicism to his evidence for the main crime (killing of Reeva)

You'd want Johnny Cochran on your side if you wanted to claim you fired 4 shots by accident.

123balltv

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Guilty of being reckless and stupid, of committing manslaughter yes. But not guilty of murder.

He admitted today that the person in the cubicle was no threat to him
he is guilty of murder.

sopretty

I put it to you (do you like my legalese?) that he didn't have to check where his missus was, because he knew exactly where she was as she had ran screaming into the bathroom with him behind her wielding his weapon.

123balltv

123balltv wrote: »

He admitted today that the person in the cubicle was no threat to him
he is guilty of murder.

It's not threat level that defines murder, it's intent.

Did he fire the weapon with the intention to kill the person inside? Or did he fire in panic because he was afraid of whoever is in there but without thinking through the consequences of what that would mean?

One is murder, one is manslaughter.

sopretty

Candie wrote: »

It's not threat level that defines murder, it's intent.

Did he fire the weapon with the intention to kill the person inside? Or did he fire in panic because he was afraid of whoever is in there but without thinking through the consequences of what that would mean?

One is murder, one is manslaughter.

He fired it accidentally my lady.

sopretty

Candie wrote: »

It's not threat level that defines murder, it's intent.

Did he fire the weapon with the intention to kill the person inside? Or did he fire in panic because he was afraid of whoever is in there but without thinking through the consequences of what that would mean?

One is murder, one is manslaughter.

He didn't have time to think. He can't remember how many shots he fired. He can't even remember firing the shots. He does however remember that he fired 4 shots in quick succession.

Call me Al

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Guilty of being reckless and stupid, of committing manslaughter yes. But not guilty of murder.

He couldn't have expected to use four shots, with the ammunition he was using, and the person hit to come out alive surely.

I mean by all accounts he had been around guns for years, was trained in the use of his weapon, carried it with him a fair bit by the sounds of things, left his gun under or beside his bed, and practiced his shooting.

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

I put it to you (do you like my legalese?) that he didn't have to check where his missus was, because he knew exactly where she was as she had ran screaming into the bathroom with him behind her wielding his weapon.

That is my latest speculation, though last week I thought he was telling the truth. He may have woken up as he said in a sweat. Reeva, as he said asked him could he not sleep....he then discovers that she hadn't brought the fans in & starts yelling at her. She runs to the bathroom in terror & locks herself in the cubicle...he puts on his prosthetic legs & follows her in...he demands she open the door...when she won't he shoots at the lock & inadvertently shoots her...panics....thinks up a story (which he now has to more or less stick to)....gets baseball bat & bangs door, or else he couldn't open the door with the baseball bat & gets the gun.

One thing that puzzles me is why did she bring her phone to the bathroom? To use as a torch or to ring someone for help?

Sometimes if you give someone enough rope they will hang themselves & it looks as if that's what's happening here, especially in relation to the other charges. He's saying too much & giving out damning information which he wasn't even asked to give...which could mean he is actually telling the truth about events that night after all

Only he knows.