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

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

The initial judge dismissed this version of murder due to some technical reading of the SA law and some Latin terminology which nobody really understood, but now the appeal judges have re-read that and found it correct to find him guilty of that charge.

You have changed your tune from yesterday, I thought it was a prosecution screw up!!! Any way ya can spin it ha!

robinph wrote: »

You can sooth your soul by thinking that he has now been found guilty of what people were screaming for, the pre-meditated murder charge. The fact is that he has not.

I know the guilty verdict is for persons unknown behind the door, but that doesn't change the fact, that person was RS and therefore there is nothing incorrect in saying he's guilty of her murder.

weldoninhio

robinph wrote: »

His version of events have not been proved wrong. Both the original judge and the appeal judges fully accept his version of events.

You can not be serious?!?!

From this weeks hearing "At the outset he stated that he had fired the four shots 'before I knew it' and at a time when he was not sure if there was somebody in the toilet. This soon changed to a version that he had fired as he believed that whoever was in the toilet was going to come out to attack him. He later changed this to say that he had never intended to shoot at all; that he had not fired at the door on purpose and that he had not wanted to shoot at any intruder coming out of the toilet. In the light of these contradictions, one really does not know what his explanation is for having fired the fatal shots."

If you believe that the above is full acceptance of OPs version of events then you are truly deluded.

Tarzana2

weldoninhio wrote: »

If you believe that the above is full acceptance of OPs version of events then you are truly deluded.

It's saving face, I guess. A very human trait!

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

OK. Then why did you say he hadn't been in the following post?



You didn't just say he hadn't been found guilty of pre-meditated murder. You said that he hadn't been found guilty of murder or pre-meditated murder.

Apologies for the confusion there. In that quote I was just expressing the same charge in two different ways, not that it was two different charges. My mistake in the way I wrote that line. He has been found guilty of murder.

He has not been found guilty of murder of RS and he has not been found guilty of pre-meditated murder. Those two are the same thing.

But people have been talking on this thread as if the prosecutions initial charge that they were pursuing from the outset he has now been found guilty of. That is not the case at all.

Tarzana2

robinph wrote: »

Apologies for the confusion there. In that quote I was just expressing the same charge in two different ways, not that it was two different charges. My mistake in the way I wrote that line. He has been found guilty of murder.

He has not been found guilty of murder of RS and he has not been found guilty of pre-meditated murder. Those two are the same thing.

But people have been talking on this thread as if the prosecutions initial charge that they were pursuing from the outset he has now been found guilty of. That is not the case at all.

Fine. But you do realise how pedantic you are being? He is guilty of murder of the person behind the door.

weldoninhio

robinph wrote: »

Apologies for the confusion there. In that quote I was just expressing the same charge in two different ways, not that it was two different charges. My mistake in the way I wrote that line. He has been found guilty of murder.

He has not been found guilty of murder of RS and he has not been found guilty of pre-meditated murder. Those two are the same thing.

But people have been talking on this thread as if the prosecutions initial charge that they were pursuing from the outset he has now been found guilty of. That is not the case at all.

"He has not been found guilty of murder of RS" - So who's murder is he being sentenced for in January?!?

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Fine. But you do realise how pedantic you are being? He is guilty of murder of the person behind the door.

Yes.

But that is the point of having judges to decide on these matters.

At no point has this been accepted as being a domestic by the court. This case has been spun to try and make it into something about abuse of women in SA, that is not what has been found by the courts however. The prosecution were fixated on following that route from the start for some reason, when they should have just gone for the charge that he's now been found guilty of. That is where I believe the prosecution screwed up.

It is absolutely right that he is locked up for a good amount of time and never let near any firearms ever again. It has not been shown that he is guilty of domestic abuse though, only that he is a fupping idiot around guns.

Tarzana2

Yes, the prosecution made a mistake going down that road. It's understandable that they did though. And truly, in people's heads, outside of a court of law many people are going to wonder what really happened that night outside of what can be proven.

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yes, the prosecution made a mistake going down that road. It's understandable that they did though. And truly, in people's heads, outside of a court of law many people are going to wonder what really happened that night outside of what can be proven.

Totally in agreement there.

Deise Vu

I have a question for Robin & Audrey (but, for my sanity's sake, I don't expect a straight answer). Graham Dwyer was charged and convicted of the pre-meditated murder of Elaine O'Hara based on entirely on a mass of circumstantial evidence. We literally do not even know how Elaine died let alone that she was even murdered. (the defence suggested suicide). Would you both have acquitted him?

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

I have a question for Robin & Audrey (but, for my sanity's sake, I don't expect a straight answer). Graham Dwyer was charged and convicted of the pre-meditated murder of Elaine O'Hara based on entirely on a mass of circumstantial evidence. We literally do not even know how Elaine died let alone that she was even murdered. (the defence suggested suicide). Would you both have acquitted him?

Not familiar with that case so just going on what it says here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/irish-sadomasochist-graham-dwyer-life-sentence-sex-slave-elaine-ohara

Sound like there is a lot of evidence of previous violence and threats towards various women in this case.

In the OP case he admits to killing her, he doesn't admit to intentionally murdering her.
In this case it sounds as if there was plenty of proof of violence and threats towards the victim, just no evidence of how she actually died.

Pistouris definitely, 100% was responsible for the killing of RS. We cannot be certain of his motives. I'm certain that OP was aware that the person behind the door would be killed or seriously injured, and he is rightly now charged with murder.
This case seems to be a bit clearer in that we know he had several screws loose and violent past towards this woman and others, and suggested that he'd already got away with another murder in his threats. But there isn't the proof of how this death happened or placing him at the scene.

There is gaps in both cases, but they are for different reasons.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

Not familiar with that case so just going on what it says here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/irish-sadomasochist-graham-dwyer-life-sentence-sex-slave-elaine-ohara

Sound like there is a lot of evidence of previous violence and threats towards various women in this case.

In the OP case he admits to killing her, he doesn't admit to intentionally murdering her.
In this case it sounds as if there was plenty of proof of violence and threats towards the victim, just no evidence of how she actually died.

Pistouris definitely, 100% was responsible for the killing of RS. We cannot be certain of his motives. I'm certain that OP was aware that the person behind the door would be killed or seriously injured, and he is rightly now charged with murder.
This case seems to be a bit clearer in that we know he had several screws loose and violent past towards this woman and others, and suggested that he'd already got away with another murder in his threats. But there isn't the proof of how this death happened or placing him at the scene.

There is gaps in both cases, but they are for different reasons.

Elaine O'Hara willing participated in violent S&M activities with Graham Dwyer, a man she met on-line, which immediately raises the possibility that there were other violent men in her life. She was also possibly depressed, even suicidal.

We don't know how she died and cannot definitively place Graham Dwyer at the scene. We know he was a sick man with sick fantasies but the only thing we know about him for absolutely certain is he was able to act out those fantasies previously without fatal consequences.

So, a simple yes or no, would you have acquitted him?

Boom_Bap

MOD
This is not a thread on Graham Dwyer. Please get back to the Blade Gunner.

Deise Vu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No I would not because in contrast to the Pistorius case the circumstantial evidence against Dwyer was a hell of a lot stronger.

You had video's showing him stabbing Elaine O'Hara during intimacy, you had the pinging from the Master phone corresponding in every case to where Dwyer was the messages sent, you had CCTV images of Dwyer at Elaine's home corresponding to usage of the Master phone, you had details from Elaine's computer and her conversations with friends about a man with whom she had an abusive relationship, a man she name as Graham, whom she described as Architect married with children from the area where Dwyer lived. You the Master discussing events in his life that correspond exactly with events in Dwyer's ie. the birth of his daughter, coming fifth in a flying competition. You had absolute proof of Dwyer's horrific fantasies and taste. I could go on and on but we'd be here all day.

Circumstantial yes but taken together all very very strong evidence that he killed her.

There is, to my mind, nothing even close to that definitive in the Pistorius case, except for the fact that he killed Reeva. Why he did it is not at all clear.

So having sick fantasies, and apparently lots of partners to act them out with is enough to condemn someone for a death we do not even know was murder but pumping 4 dum dums into your girlfriend in a locked apartment, in a secure compound with police and security on tap is 'circumstantial'?

Thanks, that's all I need to know.

AudreyHepburn

Deise Vu wrote: »

So having sick fantasies, and apparently lots of partners to act them out with is enough to condemn someone for a death we do not even know was murder but pumping 4 dum dums into your girlfriend in a locked apartment, in a secure compound with police and security on tap is 'circumstantial'?

Thanks, that's all I need to know.

This only speaks to the fact that he killed her. It says nothing about what was going on his head at the time.

robinph

Nobody has claimed that Pistouris didn't kill RS.

Nobody is really claiming that he didn't intend to seriously injure of kill whoever was behind the door. Well except OP in his "the gun fired itself" lines when being questioned in court, but I think his defence team just had a face palm moment then and moved on hoping that nobody noticed.

Deise Vu wrote: »

... pumping 4 dum dums into your girlfriend in a locked apartment, in a secure compound with police and security on tap is 'circumstantial'?

The prosecutions opening line in the OP case was that all they had was circumstantial, so yes you are correct.
What they should have done is ignored the pre-meditated charge with only circumstantial and hear-say evidence and followed up on the charge that he has now been found guilty of, and didn't require the additional standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

Nobody has claimed that Pistouris didn't kill RS.

Nobody is really claiming that he didn't intend to seriously injure of kill whoever was behind the door. Well except OP in his "the gun fired itself" lines when being questioned in court, but I think his defence team just had a face palm moment then and moved on hoping that nobody noticed.



The prosecutions opening line in the OP case was that all they had was circumstantial, so yes you are correct.
What they should have done is ignored the pre-meditated charge with only circumstantial and hear-say evidence and followed up on the charge that he has now been found guilty of, and didn't require the additional standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

I think I have it now. If the defendant is an odious little man we can impute pre-meditation in his involvement in a death that may or may not have been murder, suicide or dangerous consensual sexual practices that went too far. If the defendant is a clean-cut 'role model' any cock-and bull story he concocts to fit the facts must be believed. Gotcha.

Folks, my advice if you are ever called to jury duty is to turn up either in a suit clutching a bible or wearing a confederate T-shirt with "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" written on it. Avoid selection at all costs even it means saying you are a personal friend of the paedo on trial. You do not want to be locked in a room with people who think the process is a debate and the more ludicrous the proposition the better they like it.

seamus

Deise Vu wrote: »

I think I have it now. If the defendant is an odious little man we can impute pre-meditation in his involvement in a death that may or may not have been murder, suicide or dangerous consensual sexual practices that went too far. If the defendant is a clean-cut 'role model' any cock-and bull story he concocts to fit the facts must be believed. Gotcha.

That's not what anyone is saying, but ironically you seem to be proposing that the exact opposite should be true - that a defendant's story should be automatically treated as "cock-and-bull" regardless of whether it fits the facts.

In the absence of other witnesses, you compare the defendant's story against the evidence presented at trial and decide whether it all fits.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

I think I have it now. If the defendant is an odious little man we can impute pre-meditation in his involvement in a death that may or may not have been murder, suicide or dangerous consensual sexual practices that went too far. If the defendant is a clean-cut 'role model' any cock-and bull story he concocts to fit the facts must be believed. Gotcha.

Folks, my advice if you are ever called to jury duty is to turn up either in a suit clutching a bible or wearing a confederate T-shirt with "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" written on it. Avoid selection at all costs even it means saying you are a personal friend of the paedo on trial. You do not want to be locked in a room with people who think the process is a debate and the more ludicrous the proposition the better they like it.

Not even sure what you are ranting about now.

Pistouris is guilty of murder, based on the evidence presented in court. What more do you want?

Deise Vu

seamus wrote: »

That's not what anyone is saying, but ironically you seem to be proposing that the exact opposite should be true - that a defendant's story should be automatically treated as "cock-and-bull" regardless of whether it fits the facts.

How you have reached this conclusion is absolutely beyond me.

seamus wrote: »

In the absence of other witnesses, you compare the defendant's story against the evidence presented at trial and decide whether it all fits.

This is exactly what I, and the vast majority of posters, have been saying from day 1. Oscar's version of events is ludicrous and should have been laughed at by his defence counsel when it was first suggested. They should have gone with "the Martians done it."

seamus

Deise Vu wrote: »

This is exactly what I, and the vast majority of posters, have been saying from day 1. Oscar's version of events is ludicrous and should have been laughed at by his defence counsel when it was first suggested. They should have gone with "the Martians done it."

...except that for the most part it fits the facts.

What alternative narrative is there that fits the facts? Certainly not the prosecution's clusterfnck.

Deise Vu

seamus wrote: »

...except that for the most part it fits the facts.

What alternative narrative is there that fits the facts? Certainly not the prosecution's clusterfnck.

People murder their partners in a fit of rage all around the world every day of the week.It is very easy to picture RS running to the bathroom to lock herself away if he was threatening her with a gun.

On the other hand, his story is that he woke up, went out on the balcony to move the air conditioner. He was, therefore, fully alert when he heard sounds from the bathroom. Sounds which presumably would have been sinister such as peeing, running water, tower rail clinking, who knows, maybe even the deadly sound of RS spraying herself with a bit of deodorant.

Oscar doesn't notice that RS is no longer in the bed because it is dark, he doesn't turn on the lights, he doesn't ring the police, he doesn't ring security, he doesn't grab RS from the bed and flee the apartment, he doesn't shout to the 'burglars' that he has a gun, he doesn't fire a warning shot to show he means business and alert security.He doesn't simply set up a defensive position while doing any of the obvious things mentioned above. He doesn't tell RV to get out or call the police, he doesn't give her one of his other guns to protect herself. He doesn't even put on his prosthetic legs in case he needs to flee or for the mobility he surely needs in this life or death situation.

No, he has a much better idea, he goes out of the bedroom and off down the dark corridor on his stumps to God knows what.... 1, 2, 10 burglars who could be armed with machine guns or shotguns and waiting outside the bathroom and, finding nothing only the bathroom door, he finally shouts to RS to stay quiet . She, bizarrely, doesn't answer even though he is clearly just outside the bathroom door. Instead she tries to come out of the bathroom without, even more bizarrely, unlocking the door first. During all this time it still hasn't occurred to Oscar that he hasn't seen RS and that maybe someone having a pee in the middle of the night might be a plausible explanation for the noise he is hearing. Instead he fires four lethal, illegal rounds through the door.

Yeah, that's probably what happened alright.

Muff Richardson

seamus wrote: »

...except that for the most part it fits the facts.

What alternative narrative is there that fits the facts? Certainly not the prosecution's clusterfnck.

this is the same drum that keeps getting beaten here from certain people and it is rather tiresome. The appeal Judge referred to Pistorius's version of the immediate events before the shooting and the shooting itself as "implausible" and certain key aspects as "inconceivable". That's the proof, it is ridiculously far-fetched. It clearly doesn't require what some people here seem to think is necessary in order to convict someone. The prosecution's alternative narrative is a hell of lot more believable than the nonsense the defence/Pistorious dreamt up...hence, he's getting sent down thankfully.

although fairly smart allecky, bias yet accurate...this is a fairly comprehensive summary of their version of events.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2015/12/04/oscar-pistorius-version-events-brilliant-summary-athlete-wants-us-believe/

Deise Vu

Muff Richardson wrote: »

this is the same drum that keeps getting beaten here from certain people and it is rather tiresome. The appeal Judge referred to Pistorius's version of the immediate events before the shooting and the shooting itself as "implausible" and certain key aspects as "inconceivable". That's the proof, it is ridiculously far-fetched. It clearly doesn't require what some people here seem to think is necessary in order to convict someone. The prosecution's alternative narrative is a hell of lot more believable than the nonsense the defence/Pistorious dreamt up...hence, he's getting sent down thankfully.

although fairly smart allecky, bias yet accurate...this is a fairly comprehensive summary of their version of events.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2015/12/04/oscar-pistorius-version-events-brilliant-summary-athlete-wants-us-believe/

I just wasted 10 minutes on my previous post. Thanks!

josip

He's out on bail with an electronic monitor

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-africa-35008637

Wossack

threads been going in circles the last while..!

from my perspective, there seems to be a mix up of premeditated murder, and common murder (the later being a broader ruling of 'intentional unlawful killing of another human being.')

the prosecution went for premeditated murder, and could not prove it unequivocally. The original judge also subjectively felt that the common murder charge didnt fit, so went for the lesser charge again; culpable homicide

Its that final bit thats been overruled in the appeals court; Judge Masipa ruling culpable homicide instead of common murder. He's still not been found guilty of premeditated murder, but common murder - firing through the bathroom door could not have resulted in any other outcome then the death of the person inside (intruder, or Reeva, it doesnt matter)

why on earth the prosecution didnt go for this charge initially, god only knows..

Tarzana2

seamus wrote: »

...except that for the most part it fits the facts.

What alternative narrative is there that fits the facts? Certainly not the prosecution's clusterfnck.

Wut? Pistorius's story was highly implausible, but it simply couldn't be disproven, and the more likely version of events couldn't be proven. That's it.

You really can't think of anything else that might have also have fit the facts and that would have been far more likely? Sadly, Oscar Pistorius's ridiculous version of events could not be disproven but it's laughable that anyone would consider it the most likely explanation.

The reason the prosecution should not have pressed ahead with their version of events is because it could not be proven. But it's quite silly to suggest that what they were suggesting is implausible and it's definitely daft to suggest that it is more implausible that what OP claimed happened.

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Wut? Pistorius's story was highly implausible, but it simply couldn't be disproven, and the more likely version of events couldn't be proven. That's it.

You really can't think of anything else that might have also have fit the facts and that would have been far more likely? Sadly, Oscar Pistorius's ridiculous version of events could not be disproven but it's laughable that anyone would consider it the most likely explanation.

The reason the prosecution should not have pressed ahead with their version of events is because it could not be proven. But it's quite silly to suggest that what they were suggesting is implausible and it's definitely daft to suggest that it is more implausible that what OP claimed happened.

There are holes in both stories.

I see the idea that an argument kicked off at 3am and resulted in going straight to the nuclear option without any other indication of violence towards RS or disturbances that evening prior to that as being more implausible than someone didn't notice someone else getting out of bed in a dark room. Neighbours in the next estate over hearing noises and shouting but where two people in the same room recount different testimony is not proof of an argument happening.

Also the story from OP has not changed from the start, and yes I am ignoring the details such as one or two fans changing as being irrelevant to that. There has been no change in the basics of what he has claimed and that he was giving the same story to the doctor/ neighbour that appeared on the scene first is still essentially the same.

If it was an argument that went wrong I would have expected the story to change/ fall apart as time went on. If it was pre-meditated in advance of that evening then then he may have come up with the story in advance, but it is an extremely odd way to try and top someone, and I don't think he's clever enough or evil enough for that to be the case.

Nerdlingr

Deise Vu wrote: »

No, he has a much better idea, he goes out of the bedroom and off down the dark corridor on his stumps to God knows what.... 1, 2, 10 burglars who could be armed with machine guns or shotguns and waiting outside the bathroom and, finding nothing only the bathroom door, he finally shouts to RS to stay quiet ....

He didn't even have to leave the bedroom, the toilet/bathroom was an en suite.

Deise Vu

Nerdlingr wrote: »

He didn't even have to leave the bedroom, the toilet/bathroom was an en suite.

That is simply not true. Google the layout of Oscar's pad and you will get an even better idea of how ludicrous his story is. He had to make two 'blind' right turns into a darkened area where he thought murderers and rapists were waiting. And he did it in the dark, on his stumps.

It is beyond a joke.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

That is simply not true. Google the layout of Oscar's pad and you will get an even better idea of how ludicrous his story is. He had to make two 'blind' right turns into a darkened area where he thought murderers and rapists were waiting. And he did it in the dark, on his stumps.

It is beyond a joke.

Are you not able to negotiate your way from your bed to the loo without turning the light on at night?

Someone being able to navigate their own bedroom in the dark is not unusual.

Nerdlingr

Deise Vu wrote: »

That is simply not true. Google the layout of Oscar's pad and you will get an even better idea of how ludicrous his story is. He had to make two 'blind' right turns into a darkened area where he thought murderers and rapists were waiting. And he did it in the dark, on his stumps.

It is beyond a joke.

It is true. He didnt have to leave the bedroom per se. He didn't have to walk down a dark corridor. He walked past a few cupboards into the en suite bathroom.

I agree with everything you're saying by the way, just pointing out that to make it even worse he didn't have to 'go out of the bedroom' and walk down a dark corridor and take two blind turns.

Tarzana2

robinph wrote: »

There are holes in both stories.

There are far more in OP's version. There's more holes in it than a crocheted swiss cheese. It is an utterly, utterly ridiculous tale. And that's why he is now guilty of murder.

People still claiming that it's plausible and on equal footing with the much more likely version of the events are either staggering obdurate or staggeringly gullible. I can't decide which is worse. The fact that it couldn't be disproven shouldn't and doesn't make it believeable. It can be a good tell to monitor if someone's story changes, but it's not foolproof. It's very possible to rehearse your story extremely well, and not only that, it's very possible to start to believe your own version of events. I mean, it's up to you if you think it's still believe it's plausible or still want to believe it is, but the people who don't think it is are not fantasists and they are not pitchfork-wielders.

The link a few posts back is quite excellent. It absolutely nails the ridculousness of OP's story. I know I keep saying forms of the word 'ridiculous' but that is because I'm incredulous that any intelligent adult would believe it. Harsh, but just how I feel!

Deise Vu

Nerdlingr wrote: »

It is true. He didnt have to leave the bedroom per se. He didn't have to walk down a dark corridor. He walked past a few cupboards into the en suite bathroom.

I agree with everything you're saying by the way, just pointing out that to make it even worse he didn't have to 'go out of the bedroom' and walk down a dark corridor and take two blind turns.

This ginormous link is a much easier plan to read (I hope). He would have had to turn right after the cupboards, and the sink / shower area would also have been blind to him as he headed towards the toilet. In the dark, on his stumps, and he scared out of his wits. What a man.


https://www.google.ie/search?q=floor+plan+of+OScar+Pistorius+apartment&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=799&tbm=isch&imgil=UbcOCSU16J6TFM%253A%253Bna6fB_7C06suwM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%25252Fnews%25252Farticle-2281531%25252FOscar-Pistorius-Murder-trial-witness-claims-lengthy-gap-bursts-gunfire.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=UbcOCSU16J6TFM%253A%252Cna6fB_7C06suwM%252C_&usg=__Q0TcCX8C4Si7wdN23Cg-sOGCZKM%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjJ1ZOn2czJAhXJox4KHcWPDnMQyjcIJg&ei=JwdnVommCMnHesWfupgH#imgrc=Us_gDOZNztObXM%3A&usg=__Q0TcCX8C4Si7wdN23Cg-sOGCZKM%3D

Edit: I take your point that it is an ensuite, just not one your typical Semi-D dweller would be familiar with.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

Are you not able to negotiate your way from your bed to the loo without turning the light on at night?

Someone being able to navigate their own bedroom in the dark is not unusual.

Yep. I don't do it though when there are rapists and murderers taking a dump in my loo. When they are in there I always turn on the lights, wake up the missus and we run screaming out of the house. The kids can fend for themselves.

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

There are far more in OP's version. There's more holes in it than a crocheted swiss cheese. It is an utterly, utterly ridiculous tale.

That may be the case.

Tarzana2 wrote: »

And that's why he is now guilty of murder.

..but his story has not been proven to be false, and the believability or not of his story is not the reason that he is now found guilty of murder.

He is now found guilty of murder because he shot at a door of a bathroom behind which there was a person who is now dead and it was reasonable to believe that shooting at the door would result in the death of the person behind it. Therefore murder.

His story has not been proven wrong. The prosecutions story has not been proven right, and their version of events was equally Swiss cheese like. Neither of the two extremes of dodgy storys were required to find him guilty of murder.

Nerdlingr

Deise Vu wrote: »

This ginormous link is a much easier plan to read (I hope). He would have had to turn right after the cupboards, and the sink / shower area would also have been blind to him as he headed towards the toilet. In the dark, on his stumps, and he scared out of his wits. What a man.


https://www.google.ie/search?q=floor+plan+of+OScar+Pistorius+apartment&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=799&tbm=isch&imgil=UbcOCSU16J6TFM%253A%253Bna6fB_7C06suwM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%25252Fnews%25252Farticle-2281531%25252FOscar-Pistorius-Murder-trial-witness-claims-lengthy-gap-bursts-gunfire.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=UbcOCSU16J6TFM%253A%252Cna6fB_7C06suwM%252C_&usg=__Q0TcCX8C4Si7wdN23Cg-sOGCZKM%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjJ1ZOn2czJAhXJox4KHcWPDnMQyjcIJg&ei=JwdnVommCMnHesWfupgH#imgrc=Us_gDOZNztObXM%3A&usg=__Q0TcCX8C4Si7wdN23Cg-sOGCZKM%3D

Edit: I take your point that it is an ensuite, just not one your typical Semi-D dweller would be familiar with.

We're agreeing on the same thing alright, just was pointing out that he didn't actually have to leave his bedroom to walk down a dark corridor, that the bathroom was ensuite.

Thing that struck me as well is when he shoots at the toilet door and returns to the bedroom, he notices Reeva is not in the bed. He automatically assumes it must have been her in the toilet and opens up the patio door and shouts for help. When he noticed her missing would he not have immediately gone/shouted downstairs to see if she had fled the room ?? Make sure she was ok in another part of the house? He immediately put 2+2 together of what had happened despite the pressure he was under and the supposed threat to his life.

Tarzana2

robinph wrote: »

That may be the case.



..but his story has not been proven to be false, and the believability or not of his story is not the reason that he is now found guilty of murder.

He is now found guilty of murder because he shot at a door of a bathroom behind which there was a person who is now dead and it was reasonable to believe that shooting at the door would result in the death of the person behind it. Therefore murder.

His story has not been proven wrong. The prosecutions story has not been proven right, and their version of events was equally Swiss cheese like. Neither of the two extremes of dodgy storys were required to find him guilty of murder.

Oy vey. OK, you think his story is not the more unbeliveable of the two, good for you. I've clearly stated all along that the prosecution's story could not be proven right, but equally as implausible? Not a hope. It just couldn't be proven right, that's all. But like I said, it's up to you what you want to believe. I guess this facet of human nature is the reason debating clubs exist.

Muff Richardson

robinph wrote: »

That may be the case.



..but his story has not been proven to be false, and the believability or not of his story is not the reason that he is now found guilty of murder.

He is now found guilty of murder because he shot at a door of a bathroom behind which there was a person who is now dead and it was reasonable to believe that shooting at the door would result in the death of the person behind it. Therefore murder.

His story has not been proven wrong. The prosecutions story has not been proven right, and their version of events was equally Swiss cheese like.

out of curiosity, do you believe his version of events? If you are willing to answer please don't go down some long winded explanation of legal mumbo jumbo and if this or that and not having enough to convict him, I'm just curious do you actually believe Pistorius' version of events of what happened?

robinph

Muff Richardson wrote: »

out of curiosity, do you believe his version of events? If you are willing to answer please don't go down some long winded explanation of legal mumbo jumbo and if this or that and not having enough to convict him, I'm just curious do you actually believe Pistorius' version of events of what happened?

I see no reason to disbelieve his version of events.

I see plenty of reasons not to believe Detective Bothas version of events that he came up with within a couple of hours of the shooting when they didn't even have any of the circumstantial evidence that the prosecution then tried to use in court.


I would be perfectly happy to accept the prosecution version if they had anything to suggest that it was more than just from the imagination of Detective Botha.

Muff Richardson

Looks like that's his last shot out the window, or through the bathroom door more like

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35720684

StereoSound

Will he still be required to only serve 1/6 of the new sentence he gets? Wouldn't be much time at all if that were the case.

REXER

StereoSound wrote: »

Will he still be required to only serve 1/6 of the new sentence he gets? Wouldn't be much time at all if that were the case.

Would you prefer that he was treated differently to the rest of the convict population?

badabing106

StereoSound wrote: »

Will he still be required to only serve 1/6 of the new sentence he gets? Wouldn't be much time at all if that were the case.

He will probably be sentenced to between 10 and 12 years, because of time served etc. and he will allowed out after half his sentence, on good behavior. That's the rules in S. A. 5-6 YEARS PRISON TIME

AudreyHepburn

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/oscar-pistorius/pistorius-beat-reeva-steenkamp-with-cricket-bat-before-shooting-her-dead-shocking-new-book-claims-34650678.html

This just popped up on my Facebook feed - make of it what you will.

Personally I'd take it with a pinch of salt.....none of it ever came up in the trial

Mr Freeze

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Personally I'd take it with a pinch of salt.....none of it ever came up in the trial

If true and I have no problem believing it to be honest, how could this not have been used?

Did the police think it was an open and shut case and not bother giving all the details?

Were the prosecution unware of these?

robinph

Is it possible for the prosecution to be as incompetent as that? We know the initial investigating officer was an idiot, but were the entire rest of the police force and the lawyers that useless as well?

AudreyHepburn

Mr Freeze wrote: »

If true and I have no problem believing it to be honest, how could this not have been used?

Did the police think it was an open and shut case and not bother giving all the details?

Were the prosecution unware of these?

robinph wrote: »

Is it possible for the prosecution to be as incompetent as that? We know the initial investigating officer was an idiot, but were the entire rest of the police force and the lawyers that useless as well?

Based on what we saw of Gerrie Nel during the trial, I would find hard to believe he could make that big of a blunder tbh.

If the details in this new book were true, and Nel knew about them, I think we can all agree he would have torn Pistorius to shreds on the stand.

mzungu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Based on what we saw of Gerrie Nel during the trial, I would find hard to believe he could make that big of a blunder tbh.

If the details in this new book were true, and Nel knew about them, I think we can all agree he would have torn Pistorius to shreds on the stand.

Indeed, this just looks like an attempt to make some cash.

Dubl07

Just as a waiter does not bait a line for the fish he serves a client nor pick the parsley that decorates the dish, Gerri Nel did not gather evidence. He presented the findings of the investigators to the best of his ability. Investigators in SA are poorly paid and Pistorius's family is very wealthy. From the very outset there were people actively working against the forces of law and order to an extent that is difficult to accept as accidental or blameless.