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

Cushie Butterfield

Merkin wrote: »

a. Deliberately shot at her with the intent to cause harm

b. Recklessly shot at the door to gain access without giving much thought to harming her.

I think a. is more likely given the fact that he was more than familiar with firearms and what impact firing a gun of that caliber would have on impact.

I think that b. was the case & that she refused to open the door, & that he may have warned her to get down because he was going to shoot the door open, went to get his gun, & when he returned with it she was just about to open the door (or didn't think he would shoot). I don't think that he intended to harm her.

He then had to come up with a story for the police & the intruder one was the best he could think of at the time. It's still murder, but he's now facing the possibility of being done for premeditated murder (minimum 25 years) instead of murder (15 years) or what he was & is hoping for which is culpable homocide (no mandatory jail term at descretion of judge).

To me it's obvious that this is why he's lying & constantly interjecting that he didn't intend to kill Reeva or anyone. It's not looking good for him & may have been better off pleading guilty of murder instead of rolling the dice. I'm not sure if he could have done that at any stage or whether he had to go to trial, plead not guilty to premeditated murder & hope to lie his way into getting done for best case scenario for him which is culpable homocide.

Merkin

I'm sure he will. Nel is a master strategist so I'm sure it's not like he didn't notice it. Cross examination works because you have to have a sh1t-hot good memory in order to keep up with the questions. I'd say he'll let OP and his defense counsel come up with a likely scenario over the weekend and then he'll rip him a new asshole on Monday by catching him out again.

sopretty

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Sometimes what defendants admit in court does not need to be embellished upon anymore !

Absolutely! That judge is a shrewd woman I suspect. Nothing will be lost on her.

Merkin

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

I think that b. was the case & that she refused to open the door, & that he may have warned her to get down because he was going to shoot the door open, went to get his gun, & when he returned with it she was just about to open the door (or didn't think he would shoot). I don't think that he intended to harm her.

Sound plausible enough and would go towards explaining the shouting as well. Very good detective inspector Butterfield.

sopretty

Merkin wrote: »

Sound plausible enough and would go towards explaining the shouting as well. Very good detective inspector Butterfield.

It doesn't sound plausible to me.

OP: Get down there now as I'm going to blow the lock open (he must have bad aim if that's the case)
Reeva: NO, you're a lunatic, get the f away from me.
OP: I'm telling you - move away from the door - I'm going to shoot at it.
Reeva: No


Implausible.

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

Absolutely! That judge is a shrewd woman I suspect. Nothing will be lost on her.

No, it won't & is coming across as very fair. M'Lady is certainly no pushover, & won't be dissuaded by Pistorius' tears:
''In one case, Masipa sentenced a man named Shepherd Moyo to a 252-year sentence for raping three women during home robberies in Johannesburg. She told Moyo that what bothered her most was his lack of remorse and the effects his crimes had on the women.''

''In another case, Masipa handed a life sentence to a policeman, Freddy Mashamba, who shot and killed his former wife after an argument about their divorce.''

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/the-woman-who-will-decide-oscar-pistorius-fate-1.1764771

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

It doesn't sound plausible to me.

OP: Get down there now as I'm going to blow the lock open (he must have bad aim if that's the case)
Reeva: NO, you're a lunatic, get the f away from me.
OP: I'm telling you - move away from the door - I'm going to shoot at it.
Reeva: No


Implausible.

What about:
OP: Open this f'in door NOW
RS: No
OP: I'm warning you open it now or I'll blow the f'in thing off it's hinges
RS: No you wouldn't do that.
OP: Wouldn't I? ...(back with gun)...Right are you going to open that f'in door? I'm warning you I will you better get out of the way if you value your life.

Sound plausable to me, but of course we all have our own opinions.

sopretty

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

No, it won't & is coming across as very fair. M'Lady is certainly no pushover, & won't be dissuaded by Pistorius' tears:
''In one case, Masipa sentenced a man named Shepherd Moyo to a 252-year sentence for raping three women during home robberies in Johannesburg. She told Moyo that what bothered her most was his lack of remorse and the effects his crimes had on the women.''

''In another case, Masipa handed a life sentence to a policeman, Freddy Mashamba, who shot and killed his former wife after an argument about their divorce.''

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/the-woman-who-will-decide-oscar-pistorius-fate-1.1764771

Thanks for that. She knows what she's at, that's for sure. Hard to tell what she's thinking. She is stony faced throughout.
She is very fair to him to ensure a fair trial. More than fair, you could argue!

sopretty

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

What about:
OP: Open this f'in door NOW
RS: No
OP: I'm warning you open it now or I'll blow the f'in thing off it's hinges
RS: No you wouldn't do that.
OP: Wouldn't I? ...(back with gun)...Right are you going to open that f'in door? I'm warning you I will you better get out of the way if you value your life.

Sound plausable to me, but of course we all have our own opinions.

Except he didn't shoot at the hinges........

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

Except he didn't shoot at the hinges........

I never suggested that he did M'Lady :P

My point is that he may have threatened to shoot at the door, & may have warned her to get down The reason I think this is that today when he said he shouted at Reeva to get down (even though he had previously said that he whispered for her to get down when she was 'in the bed') he said it in a deeper voice, which he seems to use when he is telling elements of truth, so I think that he did at some stage tell her to get down & seeing as we know she was in the cubicle & not in the bed it must have been then.

weldoninhio

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

I never suggested that he did M'Lady :P

My point is that he may have threatened to shoot at the door, & may have warned her to get down The reason I think this is that today when he said he shouted at Reeva to get down (even though he had previously said that he whispered for her to get down when she was 'in the bed') he said it in a deeper voice, which he seems to use when he is telling elements of truth, so I think that he did at some stage tell her to get down & seeing as we know she was in the cubicle & not in the bed it must have been then.

The bathroom is about 3ft by 2ft. Not much room to hide or even get down, considering the height the bullets entered the door at.

pH

weldoninhio wrote: »

The bathroom is about 3ft by 2ft. Not much room to hide or even get down, considering the height the bullets entered the door at.

Was she standing, sitting (on the loo) or huddled in a corner when she was shot? Any evidence about that brought up by the forensics guy?

sopretty

pH wrote: »

Was she standing, sitting (on the loo) or huddled in a corner when she was shot? Any evidence about that brought up by the forensics guy?

I think she was standing, shot through the hip, fell down, shot twice in the head area, once with her hands covering her face, once with her elbow fielding the shot.

Tasden

Lots of people questioning the fact she had her phone with her in the bathroom at 3am, I must be the only one who uses my phone as a light to guide me out of my room :pac:

God forbid anything ever happened to me because going through this thread, everything she has done that seems like questionable behavior is something I do all the time! Locking the bathroom, bringing phone, etc.

I no longer believe anything OP says though, complete turnaround from the beginning

brimal

Very good article by Andrew Harding, who has been in the courtroom every day of this trial so far.

Oscar Pistorius 'close to disaster'

And yet I would conclude that, overall, these past few days have been close to a disaster for Mr Pistorius - and one that largely seems to have been of his own making.

Let's leave aside, for a moment, the four bullets fired through the toilet door, and examine the three other gun-related charges the athlete decided to fight at the same trial. It is a decision that must surely be haunting him and his team right now.

One was a very minor issue about keeping some of his father's ammunition in the house.

On the stand, Mr Pistorius' attempt to go head-to-head in a pedantic legal argument with prosecutor Gerrie Nel was like watching a cocky schoolboy trying to score points off a university professor. He failed.

Another was the gunshot under the restaurant table in Johannesburg. This was even worse.

Instead of admitting he had fired it by mistake, Mr Pistorius tried to suggest that the gun's trigger had somehow been pulled independently - that he had not been directly responsible for the action.

Mr Nel scoffed at the "miracle" shot, and at the athlete's reluctance to accept blame.

The article goes on and on and it looks like OP is in a very bad situation now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26989222

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Are we allowed to say whether we think he is innocent or guilty? Or will I get a swift rap with the ban hammer.

sopretty

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Are we allowed to say whether we think he is innocent or guilty? Or will I get a swift rap with the ban hammer.

I think if you put 'in my opinion' you're safe

Haven't a clue to be honest. I've expressed my opinion a few times and have had no rap on the knuckles yet (I seem prone to getting them, so you can take that as a good thing!)

weldoninhio

pH wrote: »

Was she standing, sitting (on the loo) or huddled in a corner when she was shot? Any evidence about that brought up by the forensics guy?

She was standing directly behind the door, facing it.

Muff Richardson

weldoninhio wrote: »

She was standing directly behind the door, facing it.

...whilst most likely trying desperately to calm the fuc*in headcase down.

sopretty

Here's an article from Ireland. Good God is all that I can say.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/courts/man-who-hit-wife-on-head-with-hammer-on-her-birthday-gets-15-years#.U0gushqUo70.facebook

srm23

I liked the bit where Oscar was accused of being mean to the departed by playing Kendrick Lamar "Bitch Don't Kill my Vibe" in the car when she was annoying him

donegal__road

weldoninhio wrote: »

She was standing directly behind the door, facing it.

whilst threatening to ring the police on her mobile

Merkin

sopretty wrote: »

Here's an article from Ireland. Good God is all that I can say.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/courts/man-who-hit-wife-on-head-with-hammer-on-her-birthday-gets-15-years#.U0gushqUo70.facebook

What had that got to do with this case?

sopretty

Merkin wrote: »

What had that got to do with this case?

Nothing really. Apart from the fact that a man hammered his wife on the head with a lump hammer. I suppose at least, he didn't shoot her.

Merkin

I heard about a man this evening who murdered his wife by putting her in an incinerator. He didn't shoot her either. I must go and find the link post haste :rolleyes:

sopretty

Merkin wrote: »

I heard about a man this evening who murdered his wife by putting her in an incinerator. He didn't shoot her either. I must go and find the link post haste :rolleyes:

Did he admit to it? Or did he put her in there to shield her from attackers?

donegal__road

sopretty wrote: »

Here's an article from Ireland. Good God is all that I can say.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/courts/man-who-hit-wife-on-head-with-hammer-on-her-birthday-gets-15-years#.U0gushqUo70.facebook

he is 42?!

sopretty

donegal__road wrote: »

he is 42?!

Shouldn't you be out tonight spreading your hilarity among a wider audience?

Tin Foil Hat

OP has been absolutely filleted this week. I don't think even a jury of his friends and family could let him off at this stage.

Lingua Franca

sopretty wrote: »

Did he admit to it? Or did he put her in there to shield her from attackers?

Admitted to it, but he killed her before putting her in the incinerator because she was going to tell people he was gay. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-26937466

donegal__road

sopretty wrote: »

Shouldn't you be out tonight spreading your hilarity among a wider audience?

I was earlier, finished early.. was a full house too

FunGoose

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

OP has been absolutely filleted this week. I don't think even a jury of his friends and family could let him off at this stage.

I know what you mean but the Judge obviously can't make a decision only based on the cross examination. There actually isn't any solid evidence against him, forensic or otherwise.

Intent is a very difficult thing to prove. It's up to the prosecution to prove their version of events beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why OP has decided to stick to his version and even though his character has been ripped apart he hasn't actually admitted that there was any intention to kill whatsoever.

This strategy is making him look really bad but that doesn't make him guilty of the charges in the eyes of the law.

M'Lady has to take a lot into consideration, the cross examination being only a part of that and there's a lot more to come.

The prosecution are doing a good job but is it good enough to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) Premeditated Murder, Murder or Culpable Homicide?

newballsplease

Valentines night. They have a massive fight. He gets his gun and threatens her. She locks herself in bathroom and his temper goes over the top and he shoots.

Thats the real truth im sure.

His BS story is nonsense. If you're in bed with your partner and you hear a noise or think its an intruder...the first thing you'd do is ask them did they hear anything.

Guilty no doubt.

sopretty

FunGoose wrote: »

I know what you mean but the Judge obviously can't make a decision only based on the cross examination. There actually isn't any solid evidence against him, forensic or otherwise.

Intent is a very difficult thing to prove. It's up to the prosecution to prove their version of events beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why OP has decided to stick to his version and even though his character has been ripped apart he hasn't actually admitted that there was any intention to kill whatsoever.

This strategy is making him look really bad but that doesn't make him guilty of the charges in the eyes of the law.

M'Lady has to take a lot into consideration, the cross examination being only a part of that and there's a lot more to come.

The prosecution are doing a good job but is it good enough to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) Premeditated Murder, Murder or Culpable Homicide?

I think it will come down to whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that his version of events could not have happened, or else, that his version of events is not trustworthy, due to his propensity for lying. Will that be enough to convict him? I don't know. I don't know much about the law in that respect.

FunGoose

sopretty wrote: »

I think it will come down to whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that his version of events could not have happened, or else, that his version of events is not trustworthy, due to his propensity for lying. Will that be enough to convict him? I don't know. I don't know much about the law in that respect.

Yeh I agree and they are doing a great job in making his version look very very dodgy.

sopretty wrote: »

Will that be enough to convict him? I don't know.

Good question! I don't know either if that will be enough but I would guess maybe it isn't.

It's such an interesting case. The fact that it's not up to a jury makes the outcome so hard to predict. Who knows how it will all end! I'm hoping it won't end in disappointment for the Steenkamps, they've been through more than enough because of OP.

sopretty

Any legal expert interviewed by Sky (the source of all good news lol), has commented that it has been a 'bad day' or 'bad week' for OP.
I think the fact that he admitted to charging towards the perceived attacker (not that I believe that version of events for one second), is going to hang him. As one guy put it, he is now seen as the aggressor and not the victim.

Muff Richardson

FunGoose wrote: »

There actually isn't any solid evidence against him, forensic or otherwise

I honestly think the solid evidence has now just boiled down to OP himself and his mistakes/lies in his testimony. they were saying it would've been damaging that he did not take to the stand, the dumbass would've been a lot better off not to have. He's been exposed as an arrogant and devient liar. On a side note, I really don't think this Roux fella is all that he's cracked up to be, so far anyway, especially in comparison to Nel.

FunGoose

Muff Richardson wrote: »

I honestly think the solid evidence has now just boiled down to OP himself and his mistakes/lies in his testimony. they were saying it would've been damaging that he did not take to the stand, the dumbass would've been a lot better off not to have. He's been exposed as an arrogant and devient liar. On a side note, I really don't think this Roux fella is all that he's cracked up to be, so far anyway, especially in comparison to Nel.

Nel is brilliant, he's vicious and Oscar is easy prey for him. We'll be seeing more of Rioux soon, he has his work cut out for him and Oscar certainly isn't making things any easier for him.

Cushie Butterfield

Muff Richardson wrote: »

On a side note, I really don't think this Roux fella is all that he's cracked up to be, so far anyway, especially in comparison to Nel.

No he doesn't, but I suppose you can only play with the cards that are dealt, & he really doesn't seem to have much to play with. He still has another crack at the whip, so who knows what will come of that.

Considering that he's the best defence lawyer that money can buy in RSA there must be some reason why Pistorius appears to be so badly prepped for cross-examination. My fourteen year old could have given him a crash course for a fraction of the cost on how to answer the majority of Nel's questions, even allowing for his original account of events in his bail affidavit statement & the extent of Nel's nitpicking every word.

Allowing for the fact that Pistorius isn't allowed discuss Nel's cross examination with Roux until it has completed & assuming that they are sticking to this, he must have been advised to appear contrite at all times, cry if he gets into a situation where he doesn't have a scripted answer or can't use one, to avoid admitting anything & above all not to admit that he went into the bathroom with the intention of killing or shooting anyone, &if he could get through that much when Roux get's back into the driving seat he would then do his best to repair any damage by castig more doubt on Nel's version.

Roux was at a major disadvantage from the start, as Pistorius must have pushed for him to get bail, opting for the quick fix of immediatae freedom rather than the longer goal which was long-term freedom. Seemingly the major reason he got bail was that he submitted his defence affidavit/statement during or prior to his bail hearing - this was before the forensic evidence was made available. If he had remained in custody until the trial Roux would have been able to prepare a better defence to begin with, but is now stuck with what Pistorius said for his bail hearing which is what Nel keeps referring back to.

I suppose it's understandable that Pistorius was anxious not to spend a long period in custody, but if things don't go his way he could be in for a very tough time in prison. Going from what I've read he would be in with the general prison population, where physical & sexual violence is rife - not the best place for a cute looking rich white guy who without a gun in his holster would be disadvantage as regards defending him self especially being a double amputee.

One thing that does intrique me though is that Nel keeps harping on that Pistorius is tailoring his defence to fit in with the evidence. But that is exactlty what he is doing himself - tailoring the prosecution to fit in with evidence that has been proven & shown to have been tampered with by police.

It's a cat & mouse game & I'm looking forward to seeing how it all pans out. M'Lady certainly has her work cut out, especially with the eyes of the world looking on.

sopretty

Just one nitpick in your post.

I don't believe Nel is tailoring anything. He simply doesn't believe OP. OP however, tailors his version to suit questioning as time goes on.

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

Just one nitpick in your post.

I don't believe Nel is tailoring anything. He simply doesn't believe OP. OP however, tailors his version to suit questioning as time goes on.

I'm talking about cherry picking a dozen or so whatsapp messages out of a total of fourteen hundred in an attempt to paint an accurate picture of the state of their relationship, as well as ommiting a photo of a cricket bat dent in the toilet door that was too high to have been made when Pistorius was on his stumps in an attempt to make out that he wasn't wearing his prosthetics & even called a forensic expert to testify that he had to have been on his stumps , as well as using the various photos & different angles of the area beside the bed & bedroom sliding doors, fans & cables when other photos clearly show that things had been moved & replaced in different places resulting in it really proving nothing as no-one knows exactly what was moved including the curtains being drawn & light being switched on. Half the stuff that's making Pistorius look as if he's lying is based on evidence that may or may not have been moved by a third party. Producing neighbours testifying that they heard screams & arguing that live further away than ones who live nearer & didn't hear screams or arguing isn't very convincing either.

Of course that's the nature of defence v prosecution, trying to trip someone up during cross-examination but all I was saying is that I find it intriguing. Like when he asks Pistorius a question & he says he can't remember, Nel says it's not as easy as that or that's not good enough, thereby forcing him to give an answer. Then when giving the forced to answer he accuses him of tailoring his answers to suit the evidence. If not remembering isn't good enough what is he expected to do? Drilling down word for word e.g. making such a big deal out of him saying I turned off the alarm instead of saying I must have turned off the alarm. If he hadn't have turned it off it would have sounded so yes, he turned it off! the remote keyfob is on his keyring, he needed his keys to open the front door. To me, it's not surprising that Pistorius is getting confused in some of his answers, regardless of what the real truth is.

Dubl07

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

Drilling down word for word e.g. making such a big deal out of him saying I turned off the alarm instead of saying I must have turned off the alarm. If he hadn't have turned it off it would have sounded so yes, he turned it off! the remote keyfob is on his keyring, he needed his keys to open the front door. To me, it's not surprising that Pistorius is getting confused in some of his answers, regardless of what the real truth is.

If it's a monitored alarm, I wouldn't be surprised if the monitoring company can tell when it's armed and when not. It wouldn't have gone off if Mr Paranoia had never bothered to turn it on and the whole whimpering heap of fear scenario is just a steaming mass of BS.

sopretty

Dubl07 wrote: »

If it's a monitored alarm, I wouldn't be surprised if the monitoring company can tell when it's armed and when not. It wouldn't have gone off if Mr Paranoia had never bothered to turn it on and the whole whimpering heap of fear scenario is just a steaming mass of BS.

Mr. Paranoia chose instead to lock his bedroom door and jam a baseball bat into the gap............

Cushie Butterfield

Dubl07 wrote: »

If it's a monitored alarm, I wouldn't be surprised if the monitoring company can tell when it's armed and when not. It wouldn't have gone off if Mr Paranoia had never bothered to turn it on and the whole whimpering heap of fear scenario is just a steaming mass of BS.

Whether it's monitored or not the events register on the keypad would still show exactly what time it was switched on or off. I can only assume that this has already been checked by police & was on, as it would actually look bad for Nel if it hadn't been switched on as his whole line of questioning relied on it being on.

If it hadn't then the phantom intruders definitely wouldn't have been detected & this would look better for Pistorius in the longrun.

Merkin

Nel kept Jackie Selebi on the witness stand for two weeks of cross questioning so he could potentially be spending some more time with Pistorius - I personally can't wait, I love watching Gerrie Nel at work.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/12/barry-roux-gerrie-nel-oscar-pistorius-trial

Nel looks like he could get in a spot of bother for his liar comment on Friday though

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/11/human-rights-commission-asked-to-probe-nel-over-pistorius-trial

philstar

why don't they have a jury.....seems strange

upstairs for coffee

Merkin wrote: »

Nel kept Jackie Selebi on the witness stand for two weeks of cross questioning so he could potentially be spending some more time with Pistorius - I personally can't wait, I love watching Gerrie Nel at work.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/12/barry-roux-gerrie-nel-oscar-pistorius-trial

Nel looks like he could get in a spot of bother for his liar comment on Friday though

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/11/human-rights-commission-asked-to-probe-nel-over-pistorius-trial

If a mistrial is declared because of the liar comment that would be shocking. If Pistorious tells a lie under oath, is it not right to call him a liar?

Merkin

I think in the interest of fairness it doesn't matter if Oscar turned around and said he was afraid of guns while on the stand or something equally outrageous, labelling him as a liar while giving evidence I'd say breaks every rule in the book (irregardless of the fact that most people think he is).

sopretty

Jeepers, that would be desperate if it was found to be a mistrial!

It doesn't make sense.

Tasden

Can I ask, why is the issue of the gun in the restaurant and in the car being put forward in this trial? Like is he is being charged with regards to them at the same time?? Why not before now?