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

Idioteque

robinph wrote: »

whilst telling her in the bed to call the cops

...and she doesn't respond to him telling her to call the cops - so he just continues on anyway!?!

davet82

kraggy wrote: »

Detective Botha has just admitted that the police didn't check to see if Pictorius called NetCare ambulance.

He did call them. At 3:19.

Why the hell wouldn't they check that out?

ffs...

i have a feeling he is gonna get away with this

seamus

kraggy wrote: »

Why the hell wouldn't they check that out?

They were too excited by the prospect of becoming household names for busting a national hero.

I can already smell a botched investigation here. I feel very sorry for Pistorious if he's put through the mill by the prosecution because a few detectives want to make a name for themselves and forget about the "justice" thing.

robinph

Idioteque wrote: »

...and she doesn't respond to him telling her to call the cops - so he just continues on anyway!?!

She was asleep as far as he knew. Wouldn't expect a completely instant response.

He carrys on to investigate the noises and hears more noise coming from the bathroom to deal with that and will worry about the cops later as they ain't going to get hear in time as there is someone else in the house already that needs to be dealt with.

mectavba

I would be on the side that Pistorius' defence is very unlikely, but not completely implausible.

One thing that strikes me is, everyone is mentioning about how the natural reaction would be to wake your partner, or at least know she was there. But, from witness reports, it seems they had been rowing that night. If this was the case, is it not possible that he was sleeping alone and she had gone downstairs for a drink, breather, sleep on the couch etc. If so, hearing a noise in the upstairs toilet would cause panic, in a guy that was seemingly quite paranoid and rash.

It's just a possibility, unless he has explicitly said that he thought she was asleep in the bed beside him.

robinph

davet82 wrote: »

ffs...

i have a feeling he is gonna get away with this

He's not going to get away with anything.

There will be jail time for manslaughter, or whatever their equivalent name for it is. What he is rejecting is the charge of pre-meditated murder.

opinion guy

wonderfullife wrote: »

His story is nonsensical. Those wishing to believe in his innocence may find it plausible to a degree. On deeper inspection, not a lot he is saying is making any sense, even allowing for a supposed state of fear and panic.

But to my mind his story has more crediblity than the police version. They are trying to paint him as testosterone fueled guy who lost his temper after an argument - but then they tried to claim that his story to his sister about an intruder was preplanned (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/19/excerpts-prosecutors-case-oscar-pistorius). This is a key point they are using to argue it was premeditated -> remember losing your head and in a rage shooting someone is not premeditation.

So which is it ? Rage episode or premeditation - both does not make sense. And while we are at it - why would someone who has worked so hard to overcome so much and has so much to lose, plan to kill someone he is dating for only 2 months ? That just doesn't make any sense.

Scruffles wrote: »

paraplegic? there woud be nothing short of a miracle if we saw a paraplegic running around the track,pistorious is a double amputee.

Well spotted Sir Scruffles!! I salute you

kraggy wrote: »

So much of the case is put forward and defended in these bail hearings. Interesting system they have down there.

Makes you think that if we had a similar system here, would as many scumbags be out on bail only to commit more offences?

I think we'd have lots of compensation cases to pay out frankly. This system seems ridiculous and very open to abuse to me.

robinph wrote: »

Earlier the cop said that the shooter must have been shooting downwards from a stood position, now he has just changed his mind and agreed with the defence that the height of the shots matches Pistouris claim of shooting from a position without his legs on.

Source ?

ollie1 wrote: »

The police also found two bottles of testosterone and needles.

Apparently they didn't. The police inspector by his own admission didn't read the full name.....:rolleyes:

davet82

mectavba wrote: »

I would be on the side that Pistorius' defence is very unlikely, but not completely implausible.

One thing that strikes me is, everyone is mentioning about how the natural reaction would be to wake your partner, or at least know she was there. But, from witness reports, it seems they had been rowing that night. If this was the case, is it not possible that he was sleeping alone and she had gone downstairs for a drink, breather, sleep on the couch etc. If so, hearing a noise in the upstairs toilet would cause panic, in a guy that was seemingly quite paranoid and rash.

It's just a possibility, unless he has explicitly said that he thought she was asleep in the bed beside him.

well thank you very much for adding to the alabi mr. smarty pants :mad:

robinph

opinion guy wrote: »

Source ?

https://twitter.com/barrybateman

Rascasse

She wasn't beaten, so blood on the cricket bat was from not from anything nefarious.

Roux: there were no signs of an assault on Reeva's body and no signs of her defending herself from assault? Botha: that's correct

Things not looking great for the prosecution;

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel stares down as Botha concedes on almost every ground raised by Roux

Roux is destroying Botha. This is like watching a baby seal getting clubbed.

From here.

davet82

robinph wrote: »

He's not going to get away with anything.

There will be jail time for manslaughter, or whatever their equivalent name for it is. What he is rejecting is the charge of pre-meditated murder.

we'll have to wait and see...

robinph

https://twitter.com/BBCAndrewH/status/304180899916967936

"We're in terrible trouble" says junior prosecution official leaving court.

opinion guy

TwoBirds wrote: »

I'll admit that I'm a fan of Pistorius and want to believe in his innocence, as much as I find his story incredibly difficult to buy.

It isn't a question of innocence, noone is arguing that, its a question of intent. The question is - was this a tragic accident ? manslaughter ? unplanned murder ? premeditated murder ?

I believe he will eventually get charged with manslaughter - hell he may even plead manslaughter if given the chance - his personal anguish is obvious.

Bacchus

robinph wrote: »

There will be jail time for manslaughter, or whatever their equivalent name for it is. What he is rejecting is the charge of pre-meditated murder.

Could he claim "self defence" or go for some sort of "accidental death" charge. If his story is genuine, manslaughter seems harsh too as he was in fear of his life.

His story is starting to seem more and more plausible the more I hear coming from the courts. Up to now, all we've been getting is speculation from reporters and reports from "sources" and the police, who are now being shown up to be quite incompetent and biased.

There is still a question mark over him going back to the bed to get the gun. Did that happen or is this just more speculation? Also, the angle of the shots from outside the bathroom will be a huge piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: The bloody bat was not used on Reeva. Another blow for the prosecution. The police version of events appears to be falling to pieces.

kraggy

seamus wrote: »

They were too excited by the prospect of becoming household names for busting a national hero.

I can already smell a botched investigation here. I feel very sorry for Pistorious if he's put through the mill by the prosecution because a few detectives want to make a name for themselves and forget about the "justice" thing.

There have been suggestions of that from the outset alright. Part personal ego, part, the whole SA police wanting to be seen to have changed and not take any crap, not even for a rich, national hero.

I have my doubts about this whole thing at this moment in time. Imagine the amount of crazy stuff we'll learn during the actual trial. This is only a bail hearing :eek:

davet82

domestic abuse previous, witnesses hearing arguing and a total bullshít story...

its easy to poke holes in it and raise serious doubts, enough to get off but it still doesn't change my mind that he is guilty

hopefully the forensics blow his story to bits because its not looking to good at the moment i must admit

ollie1

The gun holster they found which was on on the left side of bed - where Reeva's slippers, overnight bag were.

Was this the side that Reeva was sleeping on have they said? because he would have surely have noticed that she was gone then.

opinion guy

davet82 wrote: »

domestic abuse previous,

Was that stated in court ??? I don't think it was.

witnesses hearing arguing

Witnesses 600m away who admitted they could not identify the voices or where they were coming from

and a total bullshít story...

yes the police version has been demonstrated as total bull**** this morning

its easy to poke holes in it and raise serious doubts, enough to get off but it still doesn't change my mind that he is guilty

hopefully the forensics blow his story to bits because its not looking to good at the moment i must admit

Guilty of what ??
1.Premeditated murder ? i.e.e he thought about it had a plan to carry it out ?
2. Unplanned murder - he lost his temper and in a rage shot through the door ?
3. Manslaughter - his version is true, but he is still in the wrong
4. Accidental death - his version is true and understandable

Can you specify which one or are you just baying for blood ?

pickarooney

François Hougaard, Bokke SH, named as the ex in question and reports are they were seen together a couple of weeks back.

Rascasse

robinph wrote: »

He's not going to get away with anything.

There will be jail time for manslaughter, or whatever their equivalent name for it is. What he is rejecting is the charge of pre-meditated murder.

I wouldn't be so sure. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, his lawyer got rugby player Bees Roux off a murder charge after he beat a cop to death. He ended up with suspended 5 year sentence and paying €60k in compensation to the family.

It's very possible the Oscar will get no jail time if they argue it down to culpable homicide (or less).

robinph

davet82 wrote: »

domestic abuse previous, witnesses hearing arguing and a total bullshít story...

its easy to poke holes in it and raise serious doubts, enough to get off but it still doesn't change my mind that he is guilty

hopefully the forensics blow his story to bits because its not looking to good at the moment i must admit

Guilty of what though?

Planning to get up and shoot his girlfriend through the bathroom door at 4am? That would be premeditated murder.

Having an argument and she runs off to the bathroom to hide and he shoots her through the door in a rage? That would be the schedule 5 version I think.

Mistakenly shooting her through the door as he thought it was an intruder? That is the manslaughter version and he's not disputing that.


There is no way he "planned" a murder to happen in this way.
They could have had an argument that went badly wrong, but can't see that. If she is trying to get away from a man with no legs then she doesn't go and hide in the bathroom.
It does however follow that he could have been scared and shot an intruder through the door.

If they can prove he had his legs on then it changes things. If they can prove they had an argument and it wasn't just the neighbour from half a mile away hearing some dogs barking then they might have something to go on. I'm really not seeing anything to suggest "murder".

fishy fishy

Rascasse wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, his lawyer got rugby player Bees Roux off a murder charge after he beat a cop to death. He ended up with suspended 5 year sentence and paying €60k in compensation to the family.

It's very possible the Oscar will get no jail time if they argue it down to culpable homicide (or less).

i tend to agree with this - because of who he is, it will all be put down to an unfortunate series of events. even tho there was only 2 people in the house and one of them ended up dead.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

i tend to agree with this - because of who he is, it will all be put down to an unfortunate series of events. even tho there was only 2 people in the house and one of them ended up dead.

Don't you think that if this happens, and I personally don't believe it will, but if it does - don't you think the police would have culpability for making a bull**** case to push for a section 6 charge as demonstrated this morning instead of a more sensible and provable manslaughter charge?

TwoBirds

opinion guy wrote: »

It isn't a question of innocence, noone is arguing that, its a question of intent. The question is - was this a tragic accident ? manslaughter ? unplanned murder ? premeditated murder ?

I believe he will eventually get charged with manslaughter - hell he may even plead manslaughter if given the chance - his personal anguish is obvious.

Sorry, should have articulated that better. I meant innocent of premeditated murder.

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

Don't you think that if this happens, and I personally don't believe it will, but if it does - don't you think the police would have culpability for making a bull**** case to push for a section 6 charge as demonstrated this morning instead of a more sensible and provable manslaughter charge?

the guy is a hero to the country - personally i wouldn't be surprised if he has some kind of "god" complex about himself. Its very easy manipulate when you are in a high position. Im beginning to think they cannot have their "hero" as a convicted murderer so they will make sure it is "accidental" and everything will die down.

just my opinion of course.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

the guy is a hero to the country - personally i wouldn't be surprised if he has some kind of "god" complex about himself. Its very easy manipulate when you are in a high position. Im beginning to think they cannot have their "hero" as a convicted murderer so they will make sure it is "accidental" and everything will die down.

just my opinion of course.

What evidence do you think there is for it being pre-meditated, or even just an argument that went wrong?

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

What evidence do you think there is for it being pre-meditated, or even just an argument that went wrong?

the screaming beforehand (that came from the house)
the open windows (although the case is that he was terrified about being burgled)
the not checking to see where she was before blasting the place with guns
her being locked into the toilet
him walking back and forth in the room getting his gun but not realizing she wasn't there.
him calling his family before paramedics from what I hear

AudreyHepburn

fishy fishy wrote: »

He lived in a posh gated community with security.

honestly, have you ever thought that you had an intruder - what did you do. I know anytime I heard noises that were unfamiliar the first thing I would do is to wake up my other half - head to the kids room to make sure they are okay - thats your instinct. My instinct was NEVER to get out of bed without checking that my OH was okay, my instinct was NEVER to grab a knife and start stabbing in the area that the noise was coming from. (can't say gun as I don't have one).

When did his gut instinct kick in - seems to me like he didn't have one.

if he is so scared of intruders then the open window in the bathroom and the open balcony will be the evidence that will go against him. Did he leave them open deliberately to puff out his "story" - why where they open if he was that scared.

Thankfully I have never been in that situation so I couldn't honestly say what I'd do. I would like to think my first instinct would be check on my loved ones but tbh until you are in the moment you just don't how you would react and it is useless to pretend you would.

So I don't believe its fair to assume we know how Prestorius would or should have reacted.

I am actually now beginning to believe that he didn't intend to kill Ms. Steenkamp or even hurt her. Its not far fetched to imagine that if he woke up in the darkness, disorientated and thought there was a theif in the house, thought he heard said theif in the bathroom and did not realise Ms. Steenkamp was not in bed he would reacted as he did.

Stheno

wonderfullife wrote: »

N Planting a seed in the public consciousness (and in that of the jury) from the get-go, when really the only issue at stake should be whether you are entitled to be let out of prison while awaiting trial.

No jury trials in SA

robinph wrote: »

She was asleep as far as he knew. Wouldn't expect a completely instant response.

He carrys on to investigate the noises and hears more noise coming from the bathroom to deal with that and will worry about the cops later as they ain't going to get hear in time as there is someone else in the house already that needs to be dealt with.

Yeah, I sleep like the dead and can be very slow to wake up

Bacchus

fishy fishy wrote: »

the screaming beforehand (that came from the house)

I think this evidence is pretty much null and void now. "Witness" was 600m away and could not tell where the sounds were coming from.

fishy fishy wrote: »

the open windows (although the case is that he was terrified about being burgled)

Don't see how that makes this pre-meditated

fishy fishy wrote: »

the not checking to see where she was before blasting the place with guns

He claims to have shouted out to her to call the police and shot through the door. Not a clear cut sign of pre-meditation. Could easily be a frightened man with a gun the dark shooting at an intruder. Also "blasting the place with guns"??? He shot a single door 4 times with a single gun. No need to exaggerate things to fit your interpretation.

fishy fishy wrote: »

her being locked into the toilet

She was going to the toilet. Who's to say she didn't lock the door when she went in? Or that locked it when she heard Oscar shouting that there's an intruder in the house?

fishy fishy wrote: »

him walking back and forth in the room getting his gun but not realizing she wasn't there.

It hasn't even been proven that he has his legs on at this stage, but you're claiming he's "walking back and forth in the room". However, his retrieval of the gun and his awareness of where Reeva was when he did so, is a big question mark.

fishy fishy wrote: »

him calling his family before paramedics from what I hear

From what you hear? If that's not a hard fact, I don't know what is

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

the screaming beforehand (that came from the house)

From a "witness" half a mile away?

fishy fishy wrote: »

the open windows (although the case is that he was terrified about being burgled)

Not really evidence of anything, other than he hoped he was living in a safe area. Then on hearing noises in his house figured someone may have got through.

fishy fishy wrote: »

the not checking to see where she was before blasting the place with guns

He's on his knees and just heard noises, assumes she is still in bed.

fishy fishy wrote: »

her being locked into the toilet

She was having a piss, they do actually have evidence to that effect as they stated her bladder was empty but nothing about her having gone on the floor. She hears him say something about intruders so locks the door.

fishy fishy wrote: »

him walking back and forth in the room getting his gun but not realizing she wasn't there.

The bed is not shown on the floor plan so far, but bedroom is between balcony and bathroom. No idea where in that route the gun was, but appears like there would be a relatively straight line for him to follow without haing reason to investigate the other side of the bed too closely whilst grabbing the gun and he's in a rush to deal with the intruder.

fishy fishy wrote: »

him calling his family before paramedics from what I hear

Not heard that yet, but based on the police not being aware of what time he actually called the paramedics I'd not be surprised if that sequence was out of order as well.

davet82

opinion guy wrote: »

Was that stated in court ??? I don't think it was.

not in court but police stated it beforehand

Witnesses 600m away who admitted they could not identify the voices or where they were coming from

lots of strange events and weird coincidences that night

yes the police version has been demonstrated as total bull**** this morning

you're opinion, low paid offcier against high paid lawyer, early days too


Guilty of what ??
1.Premeditated murder ? i.e.e he thought about it had a plan to carry it out ?
2. Unplanned murder - he lost his temper and in a rage shot through the door ?
3. Manslaughter - his version is true, but he is still in the wrong
4. Accidental death - his version is true and understandable

Can you specify which one or are you just baying for blood ?

unplanned murder

btw its entertaining isn't or you wouldn't be still on this thread

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

the screaming beforehand (that came from the house)
the open windows (although the case is that he was terrified about being burgled)
the not checking to see where she was before blasting the place with guns
her being locked into the toilet
him walking back and forth in the room getting his gun but not realizing she wasn't there.
him calling his family before paramedics from what I hear

Most of this has come from the police version of the story which was preleaked to the press. The defence demonstrated that most of this was bull**** today. How can you be so convinced of pre-meditated murder when it has been demonstrated the police have not investigated the case properly ?

TwoBirds

Defense claim they found a spent bullet inside the toilet bowl that was not found by the forensics/prosecutors/when the house was initially searched?

Surely that will undermine the prosecution's case in a big way.

davet82

robinph wrote: »

Guilty of what though?

no i dont think he planned it, still murder even if it was the heat of the moment

opinion guy

davet82 wrote: »

btw its entertaining isn't or you wouldn't be still on this thread

Fascinating - yes. Entertaining - no.
I'm on this thread still because I'm honestly shocked at the number of people on here who would hang, draw and quarter him without so much as a trial without any consideration of the evidence. That is most fascinating to me.

robinph

davet82 wrote: »

no i dont think he planned it, still murder even if it was the heat of the moment

Yep, still murder if there was an argument, but not the pre-meditated that they are claiming. If they can't prove an argument that went wrong then it's accidental/ manslaughter.

davet82

opinion guy wrote: »

Fascinating - yes. Entertaining - no.
I'm on this thread still because I'm honestly shocked at the number of people on here who would hang, draw and quarter him without so much as a trial without any consideration of the evidence. That is most fascinating to me.

its all speculation i think most sane people realise that.

fasincating is entertaining dress it up whateve way you want. we're on boards because we're entertained, you included!

davet82

robinph wrote: »

Yep, still murder if there was an argument, but not the pre-meditated that they are claiming. If they can't prove an argument that went wrong then it's accidental/ manslaughter.

i never claimed otherwise, I don't think anybody thinks it will stick either unless there is something on one of the phones to suggest otherwise is the only reason i could think of the police chasing that type of conviction

seamus

If it's a manslaughter charge you can also do a lot of fighting about mitigating circumstances, etc. I don't know how the courts work in SA, but over here if someone could show that it was a complete accident where he was acting completely out of fear, and especially in light of his status and career, then an Irish court would almost certainly give a completely suspended sentence.

Aside from any chance of a shorter sentence, I imagine that as a life prisoner in SA, he'll be thrown in among the general population of murders and rapists. At least with a manslaughter sentence he might get committed to a "friendlier" institution.

opinion guy

davet82 wrote: »

a door with somebodies head pressed against it maybe...

point is they will have to cover alot bases if he is to be proven innocent imo

See this is where the problem lies davet82 - the law works according to the principle 'innocent until proven guilty' - yes even in South Africa (I checked).

Innocent until proven guilty - not by heresay or circumstance - but by consideration of what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the sum total of the evidence.

opinion guy

davet82 wrote: »

its all speculation i think most sane people realise that.

fasincating is entertaining dress it up whateve way you want. we're on boards because we're entertained, you included!

I'm on boards because I am procrastinating. No other reason.

tigger123

seamus wrote: »

If it's a manslaughter charge you can also do a lot of fighting about mitigating circumstances, etc. I don't know how the courts work in SA, but over here if someone could show that it was a complete accident where he was acting completely out of fear, and especially in light of his status and career, then an Irish court would almost certainly give a completely suspended sentence.

Aside from any chance of a shorter sentence, I imagine that as a life prisoner in SA, he'll be thrown in among the general population of murders and rapists. At least with a manslaughter sentence he might get committed to a "friendlier" institution.

To be fair, Irish courts LOVE suspended sentences for horrific crimes, especially when the accused has a character reference from a local pillar of the community

:pac:

davet82

opinion guy wrote: »

See this is where the problem lies davet82 - the law works according to the principle 'innocent until proven guilty' - yes even in South Africa (I checked).

Innocent until proven guilty - not by heresay or circumstance - but by consideration of what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the sum total of the evidence.

i do get that but we're having our own little trail on boards and i object to you objecting to my hearsay

Look if i was sitting on a jury instead of being behind a computer i'd hear the evidence first then judge

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

See this is where the problem lies davet82 - the law works according to the principle 'innocent until proven guilty' - yes even in South Africa (I checked).

Innocent until proven guilty - not by heresay or circumstance - but by consideration of what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the sum total of the evidence.

I think we can safely say he is guilty of killing her - there was only two of them in the house, so he is guilty of killing her, no doubt.

what is happening now is that people are trying to get him off free from punishment.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

I think we can safely say he is guilty of killing her - there was only two of them in the house, so he is guilty of killing her, no doubt.

Agree.

what is happening now is that people are trying to get him off free from punishment.

Disagree. What is happening now is the cops have done a really bad investigation and are trying to charge him with an offense that the evidence does not support. Of course his people will argue with that. The would be very, very bad lawyers if they didn't.

seamus

fishy fishy wrote: »

I think we can safely say he is guilty of killing her - there was only two of them in the house, so he is guilty of killing her, no doubt.

He's admitted it. She died and he killed her. That's about the only fact in this thing that's undisputed.

what is happening now is that people are trying to get him off free from punishment.

That's stretching it a bit. The law recognises that there a multitude of circumstances in which a person can die, not all of them are deserving of the same punishment (some of them do not deserve any punishment).

What's happening now is a debate about how much he should be punished. I haven't seen either himself or his legal team so far say that he should be allowed to walk away from it.

tigger123

opinion guy wrote: »

Agree.



Disagree. What is happening now is the cops have done a really bad investigation and are trying to charge him with an offense that the evidence does not support. Of course his people will argue with that. The would be very, very bad lawyers if they didn't.

In fairness, that's a fair bit of speculation on your part. What's taken place thus far is a bail hearing, not the actual trial, combined with statements from the families and leaks from the police. Surely the full case has yet to be heard.

Tom_Cruise

He will get away with a light sentence in regard to the crime committed.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

I think we can safely say he is guilty of killing her - there was only two of them in the house, so he is guilty of killing her, no doubt.

what is happening now is that people are trying to get him off free from punishment.

Nope, it is being argued that it wasn't pre-meditated murder.

Nobody is saying that he didn't kill her, and I don't think anybody is saying that he shouldn't be punished.