Looks like another sporting icon has found himself in a spot of bother.
http://news.sky.com/story/1051959/oscar-pistorius-held-for-shooting-girlfriend
Crazy stuff alright. Some Valentines surprise
I thought he would have used a blade.
At first glance it'd seem like you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you were in his shoes.
High crime rate leads to many home owners having weapons.
Blade Gunner?
Sounds like an awful tragedy. South Africa still has a very divided society and very high crime levels .
Now being charged with murder and police say here had been previous domestic incidences and that there were other witnesses!
Quote from: Declan on February 14, 2013, 10:48:36 AM
Now being charged with murder and police say here had been previous domestic incidences and that there were other witnesses!
Not good.
Quote from: Declan on February 14, 2013, 10:48:36 AM
Now being charged with murder and police say here had been previous domestic incidences and that there were other witnesses!
4 shots, that to me would be a bit of an over-reaction, not looking good.
Oscar who-now??
If that goes to court he will not have a leg to stand on.............................. :D
Strange how its acceptable to make jokes about a murder just because it has happened in another Country yet if someone on here even tries to discuss some murders that have happened in this Country there is a furore and threads are taken down etc.
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Strange how its acceptable to make jokes about a murder just because it has happened in another Country yet if someone on here even tries to discuss some murders that have happened in this Country there is a furore and threads are taken down etc.
+1
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Strange how its acceptable to make jokes about a murder just because it has happened in another Country yet if someone on here even tries to discuss some murders that have happened in this Country there is a furore and threads are taken down etc.
Completely agree, this is a serious subject and the jokes are in very bad taste lads. This will be a crazy trial. I wonder will there be a Johnny Cochrane style figure who will come in and run the show. It will definitely be a media led trial.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2013, 11:34:59 AM
This will be a crazy trial. I wonder will there be a Johnny Cochrane style figure who will come in and run the show. It will definitely be a media led trial.
An additional element to this trial from the perspective of the media is that the late Reeva Steenkamp was rather pretty. We'll be seeing photos of her in gorgeous pouting mode on a near-daily basis. Grim stuff.
Quote from: deiseach on February 14, 2013, 11:51:29 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2013, 11:34:59 AM
This will be a crazy trial. I wonder will there be a Johnny Cochrane style figure who will come in and run the show. It will definitely be a media led trial.
An additional element to this trial from the perspective of the media is that the late Reeva Steenkamp was rather pretty. We'll be seeing photos of her in gorgeous pouting mode on a near-daily basis. Grim stuff.
Pretty, smart and very media savvy. She seemed to be very much a golden girl to be seen on the arm of a national hero.
The charges could well be dropped. There was a similar case a few years ago when a former SA Rubgy player shot dead his daughter after taking her for a thief.
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Strange how its acceptable to make jokes about a murder just because it has happened in another Country yet if someone on here even tries to discuss some murders that have happened in this Country there is a furore and threads are taken down etc.
Is it really that strange to you? Seriously?
Police not buying into the accident notion.
Reports they where arguing earlier.
Roses are red,
Violets are glorious,
Don't surprise your boyfriend,
If he's Oscar Pistorius..
Bad taste I know but it's all very surreal where you have this inspiration to millions whose own personality flaws meant he probably couldn't handle the media attention and all the distractions that it brings. One person is dead and another will go to jail and two families are left destroyed.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 14, 2013, 01:14:13 PM
Roses are red,
Violets are glorious,
Don't surprise your boyfriend,
If he's Oscar Pistorius..
Bad taste I know but it's all very surreal where you have this inspiration to millions whose own personality flaws meant he probably couldn't handle the media attention and all the distractions that it brings. One person is dead and another will go to jail and two families are left destroyed.
Definitely a tragic story for all concerned. He must have been off his head, as even at our worst I would never put 4 bullets into the wife.
I'd opt for 2 well placed ones instead :D
I see he has already been removed from the Danske Bank cover page.
Quote from: theskull1 on February 14, 2013, 12:24:54 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Strange how its acceptable to make jokes about a murder just because it has happened in another Country yet if someone on here even tries to discuss some murders that have happened in this Country there is a furore and threads are taken down etc.
Is it really that strange to you? Seriously?
Just don't get the double standards that you get on here, a few weeks ago a young Tyrone footballer is alleged to have murdered his father yet the thread was pulled. Here we have a case where another fella who is alleged to have murdered his girlfriend yet the thread remains with the jokes intact.
Apparently he has an obsession with guns. Said in an interview with the NY Times a while back that if he can't sleep he'll go to a shooting range. Showed the interviewer an 9mm pistol too.
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 01:47:05 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on February 14, 2013, 12:24:54 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Strange how its acceptable to make jokes about a murder just because it has happened in another Country yet if someone on here even tries to discuss some murders that have happened in this Country there is a furore and threads are taken down etc.
Is it really that strange to you? Seriously?
Just don't get the double standards that you get on here, a few weeks ago a young Tyrone footballer is alleged to have murdered his father yet the thread was pulled. Here we have a case where another fella who is alleged to have murdered his girlfriend yet the thread remains with the jokes intact.
Not saying that it should or should not have been pulled nicro ... thats another argument, but I can't believe you're struggling with the differences here.
Do you really think the families involves in this tragedy will ever visit the GAA board? There's the difference right there.
The is a really sad story. Oscar Pistorius would, in my opinion, have been up there with Lance Armstrong as one of the most inspirational sporting icons of the last decade and its strange how both have now had their reputations completely tarnished with their legacy in tatters. Is it the pressure of being a superstar in the modern, media driven world?
Quote from: BennyHarp on February 14, 2013, 02:12:47 PM
The is a really sad story. Oscar Pistorius would, in my opinion, have been up there with Lance Armstrong as one of the most inspirational sporting icons of the last decade and its strange how both have now had their reputations completely tarnished with their legacy in tatters. Is it the pressure of being a superstar in the modern, media driven world?
No, just f**king head da balls!! Being in the spotlight doesn't mean you kill your wife/girlfriend because of the pressure
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 14, 2013, 02:19:18 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on February 14, 2013, 02:12:47 PM
The is a really sad story. Oscar Pistorius would, in my opinion, have been up there with Lance Armstrong as one of the most inspirational sporting icons of the last decade and its strange how both have now had their reputations completely tarnished with their legacy in tatters. Is it the pressure of being a superstar in the modern, media driven world?
No, just f**king head da balls!! Being in the spotlight doesn't mean you kill your wife/girlfriend because of the pressure
Agreed, he must have been seriously messed up in the head though. As my mother used to say about anything in the news that was about someone doing something crazy, "must be drugs"!
See pictures of her there, she was a mightly looking girl alright, time tell what happened, gun ownership although in a different country that by all reports is a very dangerous place hits the news again
Don`t think he has a leg to stand on here
This trial could run and run
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Strange how its acceptable to make jokes about a murder just because it has happened in another Country yet if someone on here even tries to discuss some murders that have happened in this Country there is a furore and threads are taken down etc.
Aye - no knee`d for it
Quote from: Apparently so on February 14, 2013, 11:35:16 PM
Don`t think he has a leg to stand on here
This trial could run and run
This must be some sort of record, the same joke appearing three times in the first 2 pages of a thread.
This joke could run and run.
Quote from: theskull1 on February 14, 2013, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 01:47:05 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on February 14, 2013, 12:24:54 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Strange how its acceptable to make jokes about a murder just because it has happened in another Country yet if someone on here even tries to discuss some murders that have happened in this Country there is a furore and threads are taken down etc.
Is it really that strange to you? Seriously?
Just don't get the double standards that you get on here, a few weeks ago a young Tyrone footballer is alleged to have murdered his father yet the thread was pulled. Here we have a case where another fella who is alleged to have murdered his girlfriend yet the thread remains with the jokes intact.
Not saying that it should or should not have been pulled nicro ... thats another argument, but I can't believe you're struggling with the differences here.
Do you really think the families involves in this tragedy will ever visit the GAA board? There's the difference right there.
Not struggling with any differences, but whether the families of tragedy x or y chose to visit a certain website is their own prerogative but that shouldn't be a reason to remove a particular topic.
I think he's being charged today.
And to think only 2 days ago he had the world at his....oh wait...
Quote from: deiseach on February 14, 2013, 11:51:29 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2013, 11:34:59 AM
This will be a crazy trial. I wonder will there be a Johnny Cochrane style figure who will come in and run the show. It will definitely be a media led trial.
An additional element to this trial from the perspective of the media is that the late Reeva Steenkamp was rather pretty. We'll be seeing photos of her in gorgeous pouting mode on a near-daily basis. Grim stuff.
And lo! the Scum hasn't let me down with, as The Media Blog puts it, "an opportunity to perv (https://twitter.com/TheMediaTweets/status/302209829022355456)". Anyone who thinks that rag has changed one jot since Hillsborough is deluded.
Apparently he shot her because she was lack-toes-intolerant
He has track record for this sort of thing
Quote from: deiseach on February 15, 2013, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: deiseach on February 14, 2013, 11:51:29 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2013, 11:34:59 AM
This will be a crazy trial. I wonder will there be a Johnny Cochrane style figure who will come in and run the show. It will definitely be a media led trial.
An additional element to this trial from the perspective of the media is that the late Reeva Steenkamp was rather pretty. We'll be seeing photos of her in gorgeous pouting mode on a near-daily basis. Grim stuff.
And lo! the Scum hasn't let me down with, as The Media Blog puts it, "an opportunity to perv (https://twitter.com/TheMediaTweets/status/302209829022355456)". Anyone who thinks that rag has changed one jot since Hillsborough is deluded.
And now it begins, I know it's the Scum but surely even they should have had more sense. Cue the big hoking now for more stories by the gutter snipes.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 15, 2013, 09:47:45 AM
Quote from: deiseach on February 15, 2013, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: deiseach on February 14, 2013, 11:51:29 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2013, 11:34:59 AM
This will be a crazy trial. I wonder will there be a Johnny Cochrane style figure who will come in and run the show. It will definitely be a media led trial.
An additional element to this trial from the perspective of the media is that the late Reeva Steenkamp was rather pretty. We'll be seeing photos of her in gorgeous pouting mode on a near-daily basis. Grim stuff.
And lo! the Scum hasn't let me down with, as The Media Blog puts it, "an opportunity to perv (https://twitter.com/TheMediaTweets/status/302209829022355456)". Anyone who thinks that rag has changed one jot since Hillsborough is deluded.
And now it begins, I know it's the Scum but surely even they should have had more sense. Cue the big hoking now for more stories by the gutter snipes.
They'd always "lead" the way in this type of reporting, they'll jump first and it gives the others leeway to follow suit.
Nike will regret this ad...
(http://i1323.photobucket.com/albums/u588/kiliman1/Oscar_zpsbcad7491.jpg)
Quote from: give her dixie on February 15, 2013, 11:55:36 AM
Nike will regret this ad...
(http://i1323.photobucket.com/albums/u588/kiliman1/Oscar_zpsbcad7491.jpg)
Nike advertising must be cursed. From Sergei Bubka back in 1992 through to Tiger Woods their big names let them down.
No pressure Rory.
Said on the news that he shot her 4 times through the bathroom door.
I know this is in another country and I know they will never read the Gaaboard but at the same time it is someone's life and death and to me that is not really a theme for people to be laughing at. But its all opinions on here and that is what makes it good.
Quote from: give her dixie on February 15, 2013, 11:55:36 AM
Nike will regret this ad...
(http://i1323.photobucket.com/albums/u588/kiliman1/Oscar_zpsbcad7491.jpg)
Nike will be OK I'm sure. After all if they can sell shoes using the image of a man with no feet then I guess they can do pretty much anything.
Quote from: NAG1 on February 15, 2013, 01:26:47 PM
I know this is in another country and I know they will never read the Gaaboard but at the same time it is someone's life and death and to me that is not really a theme for people to be laughing at. But its all opinions on here and that is what makes it good.
+1
Quote from: NAG1 on February 15, 2013, 01:26:47 PM
life and death ... is not really a theme for people to be laughing at.
Are you sure?
A couple of Tyronies are out hunting in the woods when one of them suddenly falls to the ground. (I know, but that's not it this time.) He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are rolled back in his head.
The other guy whips out his phone and calls 999. He gasps to the operator: "My friend is dead! What can I do?"
The operator, in a calm soothing voice says: "Just take it easy. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead."
There is a silence, then a shot is heard. The guy's voice comes back on the line. He says: "OK, now what?"
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 01:47:05 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on February 14, 2013, 12:24:54 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 14, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Strange how its acceptable to make jokes about a murder just because it has happened in another Country yet if someone on here even tries to discuss some murders that have happened in this Country there is a furore and threads are taken down etc.
Is it really that strange to you? Seriously?
Just don't get the double standards that you get on here, a few weeks ago a young Tyrone footballer is alleged to have murdered his father yet the thread was pulled. Here we have a case where another fella who is alleged to have murdered his girlfriend yet the thread remains with the jokes intact.
Don't think there'll be too many potential jurors for the Pistorius trial reading this site. You know the other reasons well enough.
Quote from: the Deel Rover on February 15, 2013, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on February 15, 2013, 01:26:47 PM
I know this is in another country and I know they will never read the Gaaboard but at the same time it is someone's life and death and to me that is not really a theme for people to be laughing at. But its all opinions on here and that is what makes it good.
+1
I would be more concerned that making jokes about disability are suddenly so acceptable.
Quote from: Hardy on February 15, 2013, 02:47:16 PM
A couple of Tyronies are out hunting in the woods when one of them suddenly falls to the ground. (I know, but that's not it this time.) He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are rolled back in his head.
The other guy whips out his phone and calls 999. He gasps to the operator: "My friend is dead! What can I do?"
The operator, in a calm soothing voice says: "Just take it easy. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead."
There is a silence, then a shot is heard. The guy's voice comes back on the line. He says: "OK, now what?"
I think that thread was deleted.
Things aren't that bad for Oscar Pistorius. He has the court's best car parking space.
its strange how if it was a sport star over here all this chat be seen as extremely offensive, but on the other side of the world its, all fair game? See the sun crawling on its belly again as usual
OK, I suppose we have to address this.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on February 17, 2013, 02:30:38 AM
its strange how if it was a sport star over here all this chat be seen as extremely offensive, but on the other side of the world its, all fair game?
Strange? How is it strange? It's perfectly normal. That's the point that people are missing. We laugh at death all the time. It's the only sane and healthy attitude to it, without which we'd all be clinically depressed. We just don't do it when the grief of friends or acquaintances or our local community is involved. That would be hideous. Nobody would dream of doing that or even be able to do it if they did dream of it.
If Oscar Pretorius's girlfriend was known to you, everybody will apologise and explain that they didn't know this and the thread will be pulled.
Now, can we stop all the po-faced shite?
Quote from: Hardy on February 17, 2013, 09:30:17 AM
OK, I suppose we have to address this.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on February 17, 2013, 02:30:38 AM
its strange how if it was a sport star over here all this chat be seen as extremely offensive, but on the other side of the world its, all fair game?
Strange? How is it strange? It's perfectly normal. That's the point that people are missing. We laugh at death all the time. It's the only sane and healthy attitude to it, without which we'd all be clinically depressed. We just don't do it when the grief of friends or acquaintances or our local community is involved. That would be hideous. Nobody would dream of doing that or even be able to do it if they did dream of it.
If Oscar Pretorius's girlfriend was known to you, everybody will apologise and explain that they didn't know this and the thread will be pulled.
Now, can we stop all the po-faced shite?
A young woman is shot in the head? Do we laugh at his all the time? I'm not po faced at all but your explanation does seem a little odd to me. The jokes on this thread are mainly about Pistorius. (Which is bad enough) not about the woman dying!
listen, he aint the 1st man to wake up legless on Valentines Day, shoot alll over his girlfriends face and pretend it was someone else !
Quote from: BennyHarp on February 17, 2013, 09:44:20 AM
Quote from: Hardy on February 17, 2013, 09:30:17 AM
OK, I suppose we have to address this.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on February 17, 2013, 02:30:38 AM
its strange how if it was a sport star over here all this chat be seen as extremely offensive, but on the other side of the world its, all fair game?
Strange? How is it strange? It's perfectly normal. That's the point that people are missing. We laugh at death all the time. It's the only sane and healthy attitude to it, without which we'd all be clinically depressed. We just don't do it when the grief of friends or acquaintances or our local community is involved. That would be hideous. Nobody would dream of doing that or even be able to do it if they did dream of it.
If Oscar Pretorius's girlfriend was known to you, everybody will apologise and explain that they didn't know this and the thread will be pulled.
Now, can we stop all the po-faced shite?
A young woman is shot in the head? Do we laugh at his all the time? I'm not po faced at all but your explanation does seem a little odd to me. The jokes on this thread are mainly about Pistorius. (Which is bad enough) not about the woman dying!
Quote from: BennyHarp on February 17, 2013, 09:44:20 AM
Quote from: Hardy on February 17, 2013, 09:30:17 AM
OK, I suppose we have to address this.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on February 17, 2013, 02:30:38 AM
its strange how if it was a sport star over here all this chat be seen as extremely offensive, but on the other side of the world its, all fair game?
Strange? How is it strange? It's perfectly normal. That's the point that people are missing. We laugh at death all the time. It's the only sane and healthy attitude to it, without which we'd all be clinically depressed. We just don't do it when the grief of friends or acquaintances or our local community is involved. That would be hideous. Nobody would dream of doing that or even be able to do it if they did dream of it.
If Oscar Pretorius's girlfriend was known to you, everybody will apologise and explain that they didn't know this and the thread will be pulled.
Now, can we stop all the po-faced shite?
A young woman is shot in the head? Do we laugh at his all the time? I'm not po faced at all but your explanation does seem a little odd to me. The jokes on this thread are mainly about Pistorius. (Which is bad enough) not about the woman dying!
Look, far be it from me to defend some of the boorish, moronic behaviour that goes on here. But this isn't it. Nobody thinks it's funny that a woman was shot. But what are the parameters of grief here? And who sets them? Do you really think the jokes here are at the expense of that woman's family? Is anybody making fun of their grief? Is Oscar Pretorius, Olympic Champion, millionaire and murder suspect some sort of victim? And is any member or potential reader of this forum so stricken by this tragedy that a few silly jokes here will hurt them deeply?
As I said, people have been making jokes about death and crime forever. We probably all have different offence thresholds. I don't think anybody would joke about the death of a child, no matter where it happened. On the other hand, I don't think anyone ever objects to OJ Simpson jokes. People died in that incident too.The Pretorius case is somewhere between those two extremes. As I said, I thought the general rule of thumb was to be careful not to do it when we might offend somebody who is grieving. But some of the posturing and lecturing here comes across as self-serving, holier-than-thou craw thumping.
#OscarPistorius #CityPress reports Steenkamp spent the night, first shot fired in the bedroom, possibly hitting her in hip
#OscarPistorius #CityPress reports she then locked herself in the bathroom - 3 shots through door. She's hit in the head, finger and arm.
#OscarPistorius #CityPress reports he then carries her bloodied body downstairs. He doesn't call for an ambulance, but family
@barrybateman: #OscarPistorius #CityPress reports a bloodied bat was found - used either to bludgeon Steenkamp or she used it to defend herself.
Quote from: laoislad on February 17, 2013, 12:15:53 PM
#OscarPistorius #CityPress reports Steenkamp spent the night, first shot fired in the bedroom, possibly hitting her in hip
#OscarPistorius #CityPress reports she then locked herself in the bathroom - 3 shots through door. She's hit in the head, finger and arm.
#OscarPistorius #CityPress reports he then carries her bloodied body downstairs. He doesn't call for an ambulance, but family
@barrybateman: #OscarPistorius #CityPress reports a bloodied bat was found - used either to bludgeon Steenkamp or she used it to defend herself.
It doesn't look good for Pistorius? He needs OJs lawyers.
Quote from: Capt Pat on February 17, 2013, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: laoislad on February 17, 2013, 12:15:53 PM
#OscarPistorius #CityPress reports Steenkamp spent the night, first shot fired in the bedroom, possibly hitting her in hip
#OscarPistorius #CityPress reports she then locked herself in the bathroom - 3 shots through door. She's hit in the head, finger and arm.
#OscarPistorius #CityPress reports he then carries her bloodied body downstairs. He doesn't call for an ambulance, but family
@barrybateman: #OscarPistorius #CityPress reports a bloodied bat was found - used either to bludgeon Steenkamp or she used it to defend herself.
It doesn't look good for Pistorius? He needs OJs lawyers.
He'd more than likely get this guy to help him!! Ironside
(http://media.avclub.com/images/419/419441/16x9/627.jpg?9979)
...back on topic.
His family seem pretty assertive that it wasn't pre-mediated murder.
I'll love to know what they claim the sequence of events to be.
Quote from: Smokin Joe on February 17, 2013, 05:01:24 PM
...back on topic.
His family seem pretty assertive that it wasn't pre-mediated murder.
I'll love to know what they claim the sequence of events to be.
She was shot 4 times through a bathroom door apparently. It isn't clear whether the shooting was out of, or into, the bathroom.
The self-defence argument could be problematic if the shooting through the door story is true.
Quote from: muppet on February 17, 2013, 05:11:46 PM
Quote from: Smokin Joe on February 17, 2013, 05:01:24 PM
...back on topic.
His family seem pretty assertive that it wasn't pre-mediated murder.
I'll love to know what they claim the sequence of events to be.
She was shot 4 times through a bathroom door apparently. It isn't clear whether the shooting was out of, or into, the bathroom.
The self-defence argument could be problematic if the shooting through the door story is true.
According to the Sunday Times today they reckon his defence will be she locked herself in the bathroom and he was just trying to shoot the door open but plugged her instead.
Quote from: hardstation on February 17, 2013, 06:39:26 PM
Should have stuck to the valentines surprise/intruder story tbh.
Shoot the door open ffs!
I suppose he would have had bother kicking the door in.
Quote from: Minder on February 17, 2013, 06:32:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 17, 2013, 05:11:46 PM
Quote from: Smokin Joe on February 17, 2013, 05:01:24 PM
...back on topic.
His family seem pretty assertive that it wasn't pre-mediated murder.
I'll love to know what they claim the sequence of events to be.
She was shot 4 times through a bathroom door apparently. It isn't clear whether the shooting was out of, or into, the bathroom.
The self-defence argument could be problematic if the shooting through the door story is true.
According to the Sunday Times today they reckon his defence will be she locked herself in the bathroom and he was just trying to shoot the door open but plugged her instead.
Time for some new lawyers.
Quote from: Minder on February 17, 2013, 06:41:49 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 17, 2013, 06:39:26 PM
Should have stuck to the valentines surprise/intruder story tbh.
Shoot the door open ffs!
I suppose he would have had bother kicking the door in.
Very funny but disgusting comment. Shame.
So we got to hear his version of events today:
"In a statement read out by his lawyer, the Paralympic and Olympic star said the two were in bed asleep on Wednesday night when he got up and went to the balcony to close a sliding door and get a fan. He heard a noise in the bathroom and assumed it was an intruder, he said. Feeling vulnerable without his prosthetic legs, he got his gun and shot through the door, he said. He then saw that Steenkamp was not in bed, he said. He broke the bathroom door down with a cricket bat, he said; Steenkamp was still alive but died in his arms. He denied that he had murdered her, saying nothing could be further from the truth."
That is one tall story.
He shoots through the bathroom door at an intruder (excessive force springs to mind even if it was an intruder) but he assumes that Reeva was still in bed. You would think that before you opened fire you would try to be certain that herself was indeed still in the bed.
The Prosector rightly followed it up with:
"Even if he thought she was a burglar, it was still premeditated murder. But he asked why a burglar would lock himself in the toilet. "
Quote from: Smokin Joe on February 19, 2013, 01:23:52 PM
So we got to hear his version of events today:
"In a statement read out by his lawyer, the Paralympic and Olympic star said the two were in bed asleep on Wednesday night when he got up and went to the balcony to close a sliding door and get a fan. He heard a noise in the bathroom and assumed it was an intruder, he said. Feeling vulnerable without his prosthetic legs, he got his gun and shot through the door, he said. He then saw that Steenkamp was not in bed, he said. He broke the bathroom door down with a cricket bat, he said; Steenkamp was still alive but died in his arms. He denied that he had murdered her, saying nothing could be further from the truth."
That is one tall story.
He shoots through the bathroom door at an intruder (excessive force springs to mind even if it was an intrduer) but he assumes that Reeva was still in bed. You would think that before you opened fire you would try to be certain that herself was indeed still in the bed.
You would check things out a wee bit wouldn't you! Regardless of whether it was an intruder, a draft from an open window or an animal that came in through the window, you would at the very least shout out before opening the door if you suspected an intruder, rather than blasting 5 holes in it! I hope he likes porridge.
Quote from: Smokin Joe on February 19, 2013, 01:23:52 PM
So we got to hear his version of events today:
"In a statement read out by his lawyer, the Paralympic and Olympic star said the two were in bed asleep on Wednesday night when he got up and went to the balcony to close a sliding door and get a fan. He heard a noise in the bathroom and assumed it was an intruder, he said. Feeling vulnerable without his prosthetic legs, he got his gun and shot through the door, he said. He then saw that Steenkamp was not in bed, he said. He broke the bathroom door down with a cricket bat, he said; Steenkamp was still alive but died in his arms. He denied that he had murdered her, saying nothing could be further from the truth."
That is one tall story.
He shoots through the bathroom door at an intruder (excessive force springs to mind even if it was an intruder) but he assumes that Reeva was still in bed. You would think that before you opened fire you would try to be certain that herself was indeed still in the bed.
The Prosector rightly followed it up with:
"Even if he thought she was a burglar, it was still premeditated murder. But he asked why a burglar would lock himself in the toilet. "
Quotehe got up and went to the balcony to close a sliding door
How terrified was he of burglars if he went to sleep with a balcony sliding door open? It will be interesting to see the layout of the house and bathroom in particular.
I was talking to a Sith Ifrikin today and he said Mr Pistorius has a history of violence.
Very sad end for his career and he was a role model to so many people.
Quote from: Smokin Joe on February 19, 2013, 01:23:52 PM
So we got to hear his version of events today:
"In a statement read out by his lawyer, the Paralympic and Olympic star said the two were in bed asleep on Wednesday night when he got up and went to the balcony to close a sliding door and get a fan. He heard a noise in the bathroom and assumed it was an intruder, he said. Feeling vulnerable without his prosthetic legs, he got his gun and shot through the door, he said. He then saw that Steenkamp was not in bed, he said. He broke the bathroom door down with a cricket bat, he said; Steenkamp was still alive but died in his arms. He denied that he had murdered her, saying nothing could be further from the truth."
That is one tall story.
He shoots through the bathroom door at an intruder (excessive force springs to mind even if it was an intruder) but he assumes that Reeva was still in bed. You would think that before you opened fire you would try to be certain that herself was indeed still in the bed.
The Prosector rightly followed it up with:
"Even if he thought she was a burglar, it was still premeditated murder. But he asked why a burglar would lock himself in the toilet. "
I would notice whether or not she was in my bed!
Quote from: tyssam5 on February 19, 2013, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Smokin Joe on February 19, 2013, 01:23:52 PM
So we got to hear his version of events today:
"In a statement read out by his lawyer, the Paralympic and Olympic star said the two were in bed asleep on Wednesday night when he got up and went to the balcony to close a sliding door and get a fan. He heard a noise in the bathroom and assumed it was an intruder, he said. Feeling vulnerable without his prosthetic legs, he got his gun and shot through the door, he said. He then saw that Steenkamp was not in bed, he said. He broke the bathroom door down with a cricket bat, he said; Steenkamp was still alive but died in his arms. He denied that he had murdered her, saying nothing could be further from the truth."
That is one tall story.
He shoots through the bathroom door at an intruder (excessive force springs to mind even if it was an intruder) but he assumes that Reeva was still in bed. You would think that before you opened fire you would try to be certain that herself was indeed still in the bed.
The Prosector rightly followed it up with:
"Even if he thought she was a burglar, it was still premeditated murder. But he asked why a burglar would lock himself in the toilet. "
I would notice whether or not she was in my bed!
You would at the present time anyway
disability-related 'roid-rage' (i.e. steroids f**king up his head) seems to be the suggested fall-back position when his story is seen for what it is.
Investigating Detective: Botha: we found two bottles of testosterone and needles
Botha says to get to the bathroom from the balcony you have to go past the bed.
Botha: The window leading from the toilet looks onto the backyard where there were two dogs.
Botha: Once in the bathroom toilet there's no way out. The window is small. If you make it through you'll fall.
It gets worse for Oscar.
As the prosecution began setting out its case on Wednesday, it said a witness had testified to hearing "non-stop talking like fighting" between the hours of 02:00 and 03:00.
Mr Pistorius claims he was asleep until only moments before the shooting and that there was no argument between the couple.
Ms Steenkamp was "dressed" at the time of the shooting, the prosecution said.
The chief investigating officer Hilton Botha took the stand, saying he arrived at the house at 04:15 and found Ms Steenkamp lying dead on the ground floor.
She was wearing white shorts and a black vest and was covered in towels, he said.
A lawyer and Mr Pistorius's brother were already at the scene.
Mr Botha said a memory stick was recovered with details of Mr Pistorius's offshore bank accounts - and claimed that made him a flight risk.
Botha delivers the killer line: He [The witness] said he heard a female screaming, and then another couple of shots.
It reads as if the case is flying through the courts in record time, but this only the bail hearing?
This is the bail hearing, trial expected within a year. They are afraid he will leg it (sorry) if he gets bail. House in Itlay and many offshore accounts. I am guessing they are trying to show serious evidence to prevent bail.
Also he has been charged with illegally holding ammunition.
Surely what's the point of absconding? No matter where he would end up he'd be extradited - unless he went to some tin pot place like Mali or North Korea. But perhaps life in a shed on The North Pole would be preferable to a South African jail where surely he'll be a bitch for the rest of his natural
From Oscar's affidavit:
16.4 On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home. I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine's Day but asked me only to open it the next day.
16.5 After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep.
The home of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius in a gated housing complex in Pretoria, South Africa where Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead.
16.6 I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.
16.7 During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.
16.8 I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.
16.9 I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.
16.10 I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
16.11 I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.
16.12 It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window.
Reeva Steenkamp was sitting on this toilet when she was shot, according to police.
As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
16.13 I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding.
16.14 When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.
16.15 I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. I think I must then have turned on the lights.
I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive.
16.16 I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom. I phoned Johan Stander ("Stander") who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance. I phoned Netcare and asked for help. I went downstairs to open the front door.
16.17 I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital. I carried her downstairs in order to take her to the hospital. On my way down Stander arrived. A doctor who lives in the complex also arrived. Downstairs, I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms.
Defense lawyer making an idiot out of Botha.
How far was the witness' house from Pistorius?
Botha: 600m.
Doesn't sound great.
'testosterone' was actually: testo composutim co-enzyme.
Anyone able to shed any light on that?
This is confusing to me.
Defence lawyer is destroying detective for have baked investigation. But this is a bail hearing. Trail will be net year and presumably that will give time for thorough investigation into ballistics etc.
Is the defence lawyer simply playing to the gallery by putting on a pointless show before the game really starts?
Quote from: muppet on February 20, 2013, 10:20:19 AM
From Oscar's affidavit:
16.4 On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home. I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine's Day but asked me only to open it the next day.
16.5 After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep.
The home of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius in a gated housing complex in Pretoria, South Africa where Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead.
16.6 I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.
16.7 During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.
16.8 I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.
16.9 I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.
16.10 I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
16.11 I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.
16.12 It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window.
Reeva Steenkamp was sitting on this toilet when she was shot, according to police.
As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
16.13 I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding.
16.14 When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.
16.15 I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. I think I must then have turned on the lights.
I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive.
16.16 I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom. I phoned Johan Stander ("Stander") who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance. I phoned Netcare and asked for help. I went downstairs to open the front door.
16.17 I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital. I carried her downstairs in order to take her to the hospital. On my way down Stander arrived. A doctor who lives in the complex also arrived. Downstairs, I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms.
If he sticks to that story then it will be OJ all over again FFS!!
Yip, defence lawyers embarrassing the cop is compelling on twitter but doesn't seem to amount to much imho. For example the locked toilet door is suggested as proof that Oscar shouted to her that there was an intruder and hence she locked the toilet door. I would also argue that people going to the toilet often lock the door. That doesn't prove anything.
(Botha) concedes he could not find anything inconsistant with Oscar's version.
That looks pretty good for Oscar regarding the premeditated murder charge.
Quote from: muppet on February 20, 2013, 10:45:41 AM
Yip, defence lawyers embarrassing the cop is compelling on twitter but doesn't seem to amount to much imho. For example the locked toilet door is suggested as proof that Oscar shouted to her that there was an intruder and hence she locked the toilet door. I would also argue that people going to the toilet often lock the door. That doesn't prove anything.
Couples don't usually lock the toilet door, close it over yes, or is that just me? ;D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-south-africa-anc
A question that many are asking is how someone that has achieved so much, that has so much going for him, that is so well-loved across the world could do something such as Pistorius is alleged to have done. There are two possible answers that also speak to aspects of the state of our nation.
The first is that precisely because of a sense of power that derives from such widespread acclaim, there is a possible measure of impunity. We see this too in our national life, where many in power engage in acts of criminality with impunity, believing that they will, or could, get away with it.
The second is that Pistorius simply did not possess the emotional, psychological and other personal tools to deal with and manage his fame, his wealth, his deep personal challenges and flaws so that ultimately, there was an inevitable explosion. There are now suggestions that the signs were there for many to see, but there was a reluctance to act because of the powerful position Pistorius occupied in the public's mind, because he did not invite such help and because, it is alleged, he kept a black book of people who crossed him, using intimidation and threats against those who might expose his flaws
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2013, 10:49:53 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 20, 2013, 10:45:41 AM
Yip, defence lawyers embarrassing the cop is compelling on twitter but doesn't seem to amount to much imho. For example the locked toilet door is suggested as proof that Oscar shouted to her that there was an intruder and hence she locked the toilet door. I would also argue that people going to the toilet often lock the door. That doesn't prove anything.
Couples don't usually lock the toilet door, close it over yes, or is that just me? ;D
They were together only a few months. Also if they had been rowing she may have locked it anyway.
Back to the nuts and bolts, even according to his version, look at it from her point of view.
He got out of bed. She got up and went to the toilet. He shouted at her to phone the police that there was an intruder. He shot her 4 times through the toilet door. That is his version of events.
(http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/2302/ff80490c77b3424f80283464627b3e20.jpg)
Definitely has to pass the bed to get to the bathroom from the balcony. He also said the bedroom door was locked. It will be interesting when Oscar is questioned. Don't know if that will happen at a bail hearing though.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on February 20, 2013, 10:17:25 AM
Surely what's the point of absconding? No matter where he would end up he'd be extradited - unless he went to some tin pot place like Mali or North Korea. But perhaps life in a shed on The North Pole would be preferable to a South African jail where surely he'll be a bitch for the rest of his natural
Is there not quite a number of countries that dont allow extradition? As for the bail hearing, the South African Police have been made to look like fools already.
Early prediction.... He will get off.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 20, 2013, 11:56:22 AM
Early prediction.... He will get off.
I think the defence will be seen to win the bail hearing. However I think he will be convicted after the trial of manslaughter. You can't shoot people, even burglars without some warning.
Roux ... but on the night in question he slept on the left because he had a problem with his shoulder.
Left is closer to the gun and the balcony. If he slept on the right he would have surely noticed she wasn't there when he got the gun which was in a holster with her overnight bag.
On the suggestion that he might jump bail and flee the country:
Magistrate: would gold medal Olympic athlete forsake career and avoid chance to clear name in court?
Changed my mind, he will walk free.
He might find it difficult to bring girls home though.
Quote from: seafoid on February 20, 2013, 10:51:07 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-south-africa-anc
A question that many are asking is how someone that has achieved so much, that has so much going for him, that is so well-loved across the world could do something such as Pistorius is alleged to have done. There are two possible answers that also speak to aspects of the state of our nation.
The first is that precisely because of a sense of power that derives from such widespread acclaim, there is a possible measure of impunity. We see this too in our national life, where many in power engage in acts of criminality with impunity, believing that they will, or could, get away with it.
The second is that Pistorius simply did not possess the emotional, psychological and other personal tools to deal with and manage his fame, his wealth, his deep personal challenges and flaws so that ultimately, there was an inevitable explosion. There are now suggestions that the signs were there for many to see, but there was a reluctance to act because of the powerful position Pistorius occupied in the public's mind, because he did not invite such help and because, it is alleged, he kept a black book of people who crossed him, using intimidation and threats against those who might expose his flaws
Third solution; 'roid rage.
Quote from: mouview on February 20, 2013, 02:01:55 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 20, 2013, 10:51:07 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-south-africa-anc
A question that many are asking is how someone that has achieved so much, that has so much going for him, that is so well-loved across the world could do something such as Pistorius is alleged to have done. There are two possible answers that also speak to aspects of the state of our nation.
The first is that precisely because of a sense of power that derives from such widespread acclaim, there is a possible measure of impunity. We see this too in our national life, where many in power engage in acts of criminality with impunity, believing that they will, or could, get away with it.
The second is that Pistorius simply did not possess the emotional, psychological and other personal tools to deal with and manage his fame, his wealth, his deep personal challenges and flaws so that ultimately, there was an inevitable explosion. There are now suggestions that the signs were there for many to see, but there was a reluctance to act because of the powerful position Pistorius occupied in the public's mind, because he did not invite such help and because, it is alleged, he kept a black book of people who crossed him, using intimidation and threats against those who might expose his flaws
Third solution; 'roid rage.
This has already been discredited, it was not steroids in the bottles removed from the house.
this is very interesting case, no witness, bumbling police work, internationally famous defendant, forensics already compromised. If OP presents a case which does not directly contradict the evidence then his version of events must be accepted...
Quote from: heganboy on February 20, 2013, 03:01:38 PM
this is very interesting case, no witness, bumbling police work, internationally famous defendant, forensics already compromised. If OP presents a case which does not directly contradict the evidence then his version of events must be accepted...
Leave aside the cops for a minute.
His version still shoots her unarmed, innocent and dead at his hand. He can only be cleared of all charges if it is ok in South Africa to blindly shoot dead first and ask questions later, which I doubt.
Quote from: muppet on February 20, 2013, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: heganboy on February 20, 2013, 03:01:38 PM
this is very interesting case, no witness, bumbling police work, internationally famous defendant, forensics already compromised. If OP presents a case which does not directly contradict the evidence then his version of events must be accepted...
Leave aside the cops for a minute.
His version still shoots her unarmed, innocent and dead at his hand. He can only be cleared of all charges if it is ok in South Africa to blindly shoot dead first and ask questions later, which I doubt.
Strange place SA.
Quote from: muppet on February 20, 2013, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: heganboy on February 20, 2013, 03:01:38 PM
this is very interesting case, no witness, bumbling police work, internationally famous defendant, forensics already compromised. If OP presents a case which does not directly contradict the evidence then his version of events must be accepted...
Leave aside the cops for a minute.
His version still shoots her unarmed, innocent and dead at his hand. He can only be cleared of all charges if it is ok in South Africa to blindly shoot dead first and ask questions later, which I doubt.
Are there any South African Law experts on here? It would seem that there is a good chance that he will ghet off though as there is at least one high profile similar case to this that has happened not so long ago in South Africa.
He's from a wealthy family as well so they have the PR covered
Quote from: seafoid on February 20, 2013, 03:49:41 PM
He's from a wealthy family as well so they have the PR covered
It may all come down to his own performance. Both sides agree he shot her. They have the gun the ammo, the body, time of death, all of the stuff that is usually difficult to determine. However the question really is what was going on in his head. That is harder to prove and if he sticks solidly to his story he might get off the serious charges. However if he performs as badly as the Police guy did today he will go down.
The facts are not in question here, simply the 'interpretation' of these facts. There was a case simliar in some respects. In 2004, former Springbok rugby player Rudi Visagie awoke to the sound of his car driving away in the predawn hours. He opened fire with a handgun at the car, fatally wounding the driver _ who turned out to be his 19-year-old daughter, Maryle. After an investigation, however, prosecutors declined to press charges on what they described as "humanitarian grounds." While this case is different you can see what the Defence are going to push as a precedent. I can't see it staking up as his defence though, as there seems to be a bot of history of domestic violence and also previous incidents of rage over a woman. Also, it will not just be him on trial but the South African legal system. I don't think it will easy for him to get off, much will depend on who the jury believes most. He should be granted bail though tomorrow, it's not like he will do a runner :P ( Bad taste, I know, but couldn't resist!)
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 20, 2013, 04:02:41 PM
The facts are not in question here, simply the 'interpretation' of these facts. There was a case simliar in some respects. In 2004, former Springbok rugby player Rudi Visagie awoke to the sound of his car driving away in the predawn hours. He opened fire with a handgun at the car, fatally wounding the driver _ who turned out to be his 19-year-old daughter, Maryle. After an investigation, however, prosecutors declined to press charges on what they described as "humanitarian grounds." While this case is different you can see what the Defence are going to push as a precedent. I can't see it staking up as his defence though, as there seems to be a bot of history of domestic violence and also previous incidents of rage over a woman. Also, it will not just be him on trial but the South African legal system. I don't think it will easy for him to get off, much will depend on who the jury believes most. He should be granted bail though tomorrow, it's not like he will do a runner :P ( Bad taste, I know, but couldn't resist!)
That case is similar enough to his story that the cynic in me thinks having his lawyer on the scene so early may have something to do with it
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on February 20, 2013, 04:13:56 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 20, 2013, 04:02:41 PM
The facts are not in question here, simply the 'interpretation' of these facts. There was a case simliar in some respects. In 2004, former Springbok rugby player Rudi Visagie awoke to the sound of his car driving away in the predawn hours. He opened fire with a handgun at the car, fatally wounding the driver _ who turned out to be his 19-year-old daughter, Maryle. After an investigation, however, prosecutors declined to press charges on what they described as "humanitarian grounds." While this case is different you can see what the Defence are going to push as a precedent. I can't see it staking up as his defence though, as there seems to be a bot of history of domestic violence and also previous incidents of rage over a woman. Also, it will not just be him on trial but the South African legal system. I don't think it will easy for him to get off, much will depend on who the jury believes most. He should be granted bail though tomorrow, it's not like he will do a runner :P ( Bad taste, I know, but couldn't resist!)
That case is similar enough to his story that the cynic in me thinks having his lawyer on the scene so early may have something to do with it
Remarkable that the lawyer made it before the cops.
Here's the question in my head about this, if he thought it was an intruder in the bathroom, wouldn't he shout or scream, "I've got a gun get the fck out of my House" he would definitely said something,she would of answered for sure, the other thing is he shot her 4times, surely she would of screamed, then he would of heard her on the first bullet for sure, why shoot 3more times. I think he's guilty. You don't shoot 4 times by accident and not hear the other person at all. Also this place had the highest security in SA. Anyone think the same?
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on February 20, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
Here's the question in my head about this, if he thought it was an intruder in the bathroom, wouldn't he shout or scream, "I've got a gun get the fck out of my House" he would definitely said something,she would of answered for sure, the other thing is he shot her 4times, surely she would of screamed, then he would of heard her on the first bullet for sure, why shoot 3more times. I think he's guilty. You don't shoot 4 times by accident and not hear the other person at all. Also this place had the highest security in SA. Anyone think the same?
Apparently there hadn't been a burglary there in 5 years.
I think he has serious anger management issues which, given 12 months, the prosecution will have loads of proof of this. I think he snapped and shot her knowing it was her but in a fit of some crazed rage.
Even if everything he said was true surely he can't go firing his gun in his apartment en suite, in the dark, through a closed door, without establishing if his partner is safe?
Quote16.10 I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
I dunno about Oscar, but when I go within inches of the bathroom door when herself is in there, she lets me know to come no further. Surely if he yelled she would have replied that it was her, and to chill the feckin beans and get back to bed?
Quote from: muppet on February 20, 2013, 05:44:22 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on February 20, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
Here's the question in my head about this, if he thought it was an intruder in the bathroom, wouldn't he shout or scream, "I've got a gun get the fck out of my House" he would definitely said something,she would of answered for sure, the other thing is he shot her 4times, surely she would of screamed, then he would of heard her on the first bullet for sure, why shoot 3more times. I think he's guilty. You don't shoot 4 times by accident and not hear the other person at all. Also this place had the highest security in SA. Anyone think the same?
Apparently there hadn't been a burglary there in 5 years.
I think he has serious anger management issues which, given 12 months, the prosecution will have loads of proof of this. I think he snapped and shot her knowing it was her but in a fit of some crazed rage.
Even if everything he said was true surely he can't go firing his gun in his apartment en suite, in the dark, through a closed door, without establishing if his partner is safe?
For his story to be true he has to be either a) completely and utterly stupid or b) to have seriously crapped himself.
Option c) is he's not telling the truth.
b) would tie in with anger management.
It is very far fetched that you would be in bed with someone, get out of bed when you hear a noise, come back to hear a noise in the bathroom, don't check if who you were in bed with is in the bathroom and then fire at will.
Was the noise he heard in the first place from the bathroom?
All very very far fetched.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on February 20, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
Here's the question in my head about this, if he thought it was an intruder in the bathroom, wouldn't he shout or scream, "I've got a gun get the fck out of my House" he would definitely said something,she would of answered for sure, the other thing is he shot her 4times, surely she would of screamed, then he would of heard her on the first bullet for sure, why shoot 3more times. I think he's guilty. You don't shoot 4 times by accident and not hear the other person at all. Also this place had the highest security in SA. Anyone think the same?
You're assuming he fired and waited for a response. You could fire off four shots in a second.
Why do people here always have to make pronouncements on whether someone is guilty or not based on a smattering of the facts? What you believe is completely inconsequential. Pistorious' story may sound far fetched but nobody can categorically say his version of events is absolutely implausible.
Just observe and see what comes out over the weeks and months ahead.
I wonder what went between Oscar and his lawyer in that time before the police arrived.
I presume Oscar said something like this 'I have a memory blackout, how do you think it went down?'
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2013, 06:44:04 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on February 20, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
Here's the question in my head about this, if he thought it was an intruder in the bathroom, wouldn't he shout or scream, "I've got a gun get the fck out of my House" he would definitely said something,she would of answered for sure, the other thing is he shot her 4times, surely she would of screamed, then he would of heard her on the first bullet for sure, why shoot 3more times. I think he's guilty. You don't shoot 4 times by accident and not hear the other person at all. Also this place had the highest security in SA. Anyone think the same?
You're assuming he fired and waited for a response. You could fire off four shots in a second.
Why do people here always have to make pronouncements on whether someone is guilty or not based on a smattering of the facts? What you believe is completely inconsequential. Pistorious' story may sound far fetched but nobody can categorically say his version of events is absolutely implausible.
Just observe and see what comes out over the weeks and months ahead.
You really don't get discussion boards, do you?
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on February 20, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
Here's the question in my head about this, if he thought it was an intruder in the bathroom, wouldn't he shout or scream, "I've got a gun get the fck out of my House" he would definitely said something,she would of answered for sure, the other thing is he shot her 4times, surely she would of screamed, then he would of heard her on the first bullet for sure, why shoot 3more times. I think he's guilty. You don't shoot 4 times by accident and not hear the other person at all. Also this place had the highest security in SA. Anyone think the same?
Of you ever been shot?
Watch out Pistorious!!! It's the grammar police!!
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on February 20, 2013, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2013, 06:44:04 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on February 20, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
Here's the question in my head about this, if he thought it was an intruder in the bathroom, wouldn't he shout or scream, "I've got a gun get the fck out of my House" he would definitely said something,she would of answered for sure, the other thing is he shot her 4times, surely she would of screamed, then he would of heard her on the first bullet for sure, why shoot 3more times. I think he's guilty. You don't shoot 4 times by accident and not hear the other person at all. Also this place had the highest security in SA. Anyone think the same?
You're assuming he fired and waited for a response. You could fire off four shots in a second.
Why do people here always have to make pronouncements on whether someone is guilty or not based on a smattering of the facts? What you believe is completely inconsequential. Pistorious' story may sound far fetched but nobody can categorically say his version of events is absolutely implausible.
Just observe and see what comes out over the weeks and months ahead.
You really don't get discussion boards, do you?
There's a distinct difference between informed discussion and speculation and judgment based on a few soundbites from a couple of initial court hearings.
I can't remember exactly what the case was but a few years ago here, people on this board were calling for someone (in the UK I think it was) to be strung up after a "slam dunk" case was reported. The defendant was subsequently declared 100% innocent after the alleged victim confessed that he/she had made it all up as an exercise in revenge.
Jumping to conclusions when ill-informed of all the facts benefits nobody and, in cases of life and death such as this, is particularly distasteful.
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2013, 07:43:10 PM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on February 20, 2013, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2013, 06:44:04 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on February 20, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
Here's the question in my head about this, if he thought it was an intruder in the bathroom, wouldn't he shout or scream, "I've got a gun get the fck out of my House" he would definitely said something,she would of answered for sure, the other thing is he shot her 4times, surely she would of screamed, then he would of heard her on the first bullet for sure, why shoot 3more times. I think he's guilty. You don't shoot 4 times by accident and not hear the other person at all. Also this place had the highest security in SA. Anyone think the same?
You're assuming he fired and waited for a response. You could fire off four shots in a second.
Why do people here always have to make pronouncements on whether someone is guilty or not based on a smattering of the facts? What you believe is completely inconsequential. Pistorious' story may sound far fetched but nobody can categorically say his version of events is absolutely implausible.
Just observe and see what comes out over the weeks and months ahead.
You really don't get discussion boards, do you?
There's a distinct difference between informed discussion and speculation and judgment based on a few soundbites from a couple of initial court hearings.
I can't remember exactly what the case was but a few years ago here, people on this board were calling for someone (in the UK I think it was) to be strung up after a "slam dunk" case was reported. The defendant was subsequently declared 100% innocent after the alleged victim confessed that he/she had made it all up as an exercise in revenge.
Jumping to conclusions when ill-informed of all the facts benefits nobody and, in cases of life and death such as this, is particularly distasteful.
We have most of the facts, including his affadavit. We are only speculating on a small area, mainly his mindset at the time. The reality is no one will ever know for sure, other than himself. Unless he confesses or breaks down completely, I suspect this will be disputed either way long after the trial has ended.
What kind of burglar breaks in UPSTAIRS to a house? AT NIGHT time when people are likely to be asleep!
He is guilty
Wakey wakey
ah noise in the bathroom
hang on i do not live alone
but will I
a. Turn on the light
b. Shout my girlfriends name or
C.. Take my loaded gun, stump over to the bathroom door, NOT SHOUT then fire 1 time, then another, once more and finally shot number 4..
I hope he gets prison issue legs in jail
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2013, 07:43:10 PM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on February 20, 2013, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2013, 06:44:04 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on February 20, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
Here's the question in my head about this, if he thought it was an intruder in the bathroom, wouldn't he shout or scream, "I've got a gun get the fck out of my House" he would definitely said something,she would of answered for sure, the other thing is he shot her 4times, surely she would of screamed, then he would of heard her on the first bullet for sure, why shoot 3more times. I think he's guilty. You don't shoot 4 times by accident and not hear the other person at all. Also this place had the highest security in SA. Anyone think the same?
You're assuming he fired and waited for a response. You could fire off four shots in a second.
Why do people here always have to make pronouncements on whether someone is guilty or not based on a smattering of the facts? What you believe is completely inconsequential. Pistorious' story may sound far fetched but nobody can categorically say his version of events is absolutely implausible.
Just observe and see what comes out over the weeks and months ahead.
You really don't get discussion boards, do you?
There's a distinct difference between informed discussion and speculation and judgment based on a few soundbites from a couple of initial court hearings.
I can't remember exactly what the case was but a few years ago here, people on this board were calling for someone (in the UK I think it was) to be strung up after a "slam dunk" case was reported. The defendant was subsequently declared 100% innocent after the alleged victim confessed that he/she had made it all up as an exercise in revenge.
Jumping to conclusions when ill-informed of all the facts benefits nobody and, in cases of life and death such as this, is particularly distasteful.
Slightly different in the fact that he has admitted he shot her. The only thing to speculate on is whether he meant it. Whatever comes out in the weeks ahead, we will not know whether he meant it or not.
Chat here isn't going to change the outcome of the trial so we can say whatever the fcuk we want (informed or otherwise).
Looks like this case is going to have plenty of surprises. Lead detective Hilton Botha is reportedly getting dropped from the case due to attempted murder allegations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2013/feb/21/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-day-three-live-coverage
Edit: Or is he being dropped? Maybe he is just out of his depth?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 20, 2013, 08:34:44 PM
Chat here isn't going to change the outcome of the trial so we can say whatever the fcuk we want (informed or otherwise).
I wasn't suggesting that there would be an effect on the outcome of the trial. More lamenting the mindset that enables people to judge someone guilty of crime based on a few days' news headlines.
The lead detective has been dropped from the case, facing his own court hearing
http://t.co/OOBki8OEuf
The defence may angle for a reduced charge, some media are speculating on culpable homicide.
From wiki:
South Africa
"Culpable homicide" has been defined simply[3] as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being".
Chris Brown was arrested on suspicion of firing on a burglar at his home last night. Afterwards he confessed he thought he was shooting at his girlfriend.
Arguments finished - ruling at 2.30pm their time (I think that's 12.30pm here)
He has benn granted bail. http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0222/368996-oscar-pistorius-court/
Quote from: All of a Sludden on February 22, 2013, 03:52:36 PM
He has benn granted bail. http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0222/368996-oscar-pistorius-court/
See if a brother of mine did that to his GF I would not be celebrating his release on bail, I wouldnt even show up to support him if I knew him to be guilty, he could go fcuk himself for killing a woman in such circumstances, I will never get the gloating and happiness when the likes of this guy has a small victory in court like this, have they no thought for the victim's family???
WTF would the burglar have been stealing in the bathroom? Or did he think the burglar was havin a quick dump before robbin the place. This is balls, he lost the head and shot her ffs!! Ive no doubt he regrets it but still!! Feel for her family at this stage, theyre gona have to sit and watch the trial, which if the bail hearing is anything to go by looks like being a circus!!
The Guardian has a decent summary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/22/oscar-pistorious-bail-judge-reasons) of the ruling:
QuoteJudge Desmond Nair has granted Oscar Pistorius bail ahead of his trial for the alleged murder of Reeva Steenkamp. Bail has been set at 1m rand (£73,000), and Pistorius has been ordered not to return to Silver Woods estate, where the shooting took place, and to report to a police station on Mondays and Fridays.
These were the judge's main reasons:
• He did not think Pistorius was a flight risk.
• He did not think the prosecution had shown that Pistorius had a propensity for violence.
• He did not think the prosecution had shown there would be public outrage if he were released on bail.
• He did not think the prosecution's case was so strong that Pistorius's only reasonable reaction were he released would be to flee.
But the judge also pointed out holes in Pistorius's story that may prove important when the case comes to trial:
• Why did he not ascertain Steenkamp's whereabouts?
• Why did he not verify who was in the toilet?
• Why did Steenkamp not scream back from the toilet?
• Why did the deceased and the accused not escape through the bedroom door rather than venture into the toilet?
• Why would the accused venture into danger knowing the intruder was in the toilet, leaving himself open to attack? He returned to the dangerous area. What if the intruder was waiting for him?
And he said he had difficulty with the defence's version of why the accused slept on the other side of the bed from usual that night.
Oscar Pistorious has been granted bail, on condition that he hands over his arms.
Quote from: All of a Sludden on February 22, 2013, 06:02:15 PM
Oscar Pistorious has been granted bail, on condition that he hands over his arms.
Sadly this type of joke will run and run.
(http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/538236_539209889445681_1061225561_n.jpg)
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2013, 06:04:43 PM
Quote from: All of a Sludden on February 22, 2013, 06:02:15 PM
Oscar Pistorious has been granted bail, on condition that he hands over his arms.
Sadly this type of joke will run and run.
Well Muppet, you appear to be partial to the odd joke yourself :)
I was bemused by the bail conditions, 'hand over your passport and your arsenal of weapons' please.
It's easy to forget that a young woman has been killed, behind all this absurdity.
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2013, 06:04:43 PM
Quote from: All of a Sludden on February 22, 2013, 06:02:15 PM
Oscar Pistorious has been granted bail, on condition that he hands over his arms.
Sadly this type of joke will run and run.
Oscar wanted a new bathroom door, but the girlfriend was dead against it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/24/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-brother/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/24/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-brother/index.html)
Oscar Pistorius' brother Carl faces culpable homicide charge
This would make for an interesting turn of events.
http://www.ibtimes.com/reeva-steenkamp-may-have-been-pregnant-time-her-death-alleges-national-enquirer-1103126
Quote from: BennyHarp on February 26, 2013, 10:37:58 PM
This would make for an interesting turn of events.
http://www.ibtimes.com/reeva-steenkamp-may-have-been-pregnant-time-her-death-alleges-national-enquirer-1103126
Just when you think this story could get no lower you hear she might have been pregnant!
So if Pistoius's claim that he thought it was an intruder he murdered is believed, presumably he will get off scott-free?
So *if* it had been an intruder, petty thief, homeless person looking for shelter etc. should he not still be facing murder charges? Or in South Africa are you allowed to murder unwelcome guests?
Quote from: Over the Bar on February 26, 2013, 11:43:37 PM
So if Pistoius's claim that he thought it was an intruder he murdered is believed, presumably he will get off scott-free?
So *if* it had been an intruder, petty thief, homeless person looking for shelter etc. should he not still be facing murder charges? Or in South Africa are you allowed to murder unwelcome guests?
If he can get a jury to believe that he thought it was an intruder then he will walk. SA is one of the most dangerous countries on the planet, have a look at the stats I am sure they are widely available, but from memory there were over 15000 murders last year in a country with a population of less than 50 million. America had somewhere in the region of 18000 murders, but more than four times the population.
The old spitting image song wasn't far wrong, they are a horrible race of people.
Quote from: All of a Sludden on February 28, 2013, 11:35:04 PM
The old spitting image song wasn't far wrong, they are a horrible race of people.
I love their accent though.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317827/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-case-Detective-Hilton-Botha-explains-convinced-Blade-Runner-guilty.html
This detective isn't sitting on the fence at all.
On the opening day of the Oscar Pistorius trial, Paddy Power sink to a new low.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/oscar-pistorius-trial-paddy-power-defends-sick-betting-advert-describing-murder-case-as-like-oj-simpson-on-steroids-30057965.html
Guilty as fcuk, I say hang the fecker by the ankles.................................................. Oh wait!
Quote from: stew on March 03, 2014, 09:44:34 PM
Guilty as fcuk, I say hang the fecker by the ankles.................................................. Oh wait!
Nice.
Oscar trying to say now that the trauma caused by the amputation of his legs as a child made him develop an anxiety condition and that when confronted with danger or threat, Pistorious would fight and not flight and that he would have been suffering from this condition on the night Reeva was killed.
The prosecution want Pistorious into the mental for a month.
He's walking, pardon the pun.
Quote from: All of a Sludden on February 28, 2013, 11:35:04 PM
The old spitting image song wasn't far wrong, they are a horrible race of people.
Wait, could you care to elaborate on that.
Quote from: thejuice on May 12, 2014, 08:45:42 PM
Quote from: All of a Sludden on February 28, 2013, 11:35:04 PM
The old spitting image song wasn't far wrong, they are a horrible race of people.
Wait, could you care to elaborate on that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZjwCmJrnlY
Quote from: orangeman on May 02, 2013, 06:01:13 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317827/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-case-Detective-Hilton-Botha-explains-convinced-Blade-Runner-guilty.html
This detective isn't sitting on the fence at all.
I can see why he was dropped, hes clearly a dumbass. Whether or not someone could have got in or not is irrelevant, its clear noone did get in.
Jesus he looks like the Munster Prop, BJ Botha. I wonder are they related.
Judge delivering verdict at the minte. So far he is not guilty of premeditated murder.
Not gulty of second degree murder.
What charges is he facing? 1st and 2nd degree murder? What about manslaughter?
Is it not a given that he will do jail time due to unlawful possession of a weapon?
Culpable homicide/manslaughter is the other charge, the verdict will be delivered after lunch.
Quote from: Agent Orange on September 11, 2014, 11:42:29 AM
Culpable homicide/manslaughter is the other charge, the verdict will be delivered after lunch.
they are stopping for Lunch? Mid Verdict? Jesus, that's almost inhumane!
I don't see how he gets off with the culpable homicide charge either, big jail time for that one too.
A joke decision. OJ II.
It never looked to me at least like Pistorious was going to get done for murder here.
The police did their best to contaminate the "murder" scene and so on.
Not Guilty on Culpable Homicide either. That's 'Manslaughter' here yeah? So basically he's got off on all aspects of killing her. I can't believe that.
13.24 Court adjourns - Pistorius 'negligent'
Judge Masipa says Pistorius "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and was "negligent". She didn't, however, find him guilty of culpable homicide. She has adjourned until tomorrow, when she will deliver a verdict.
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 11, 2014, 01:35:13 PM
Not Guilty on Culpable Homicide either. That's 'Manslaughter' here yeah? So basically he's got off on all aspects of killing her. I can't believe that.
13.24 Court adjourns - Pistorius 'negligent'
Judge Masipa says Pistorius "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and was "negligent". She didn't, however, find him guilty of culpable homicide. She has adjourned until tomorrow, when she will deliver a verdict.
He fired through a closed door and someone is dead. How is he not culpable in her death?! :-\
I find it oddly reassuring how members of the judiciary around the world share a sense of narcissism, self-obsession and complete indifference to how they appear to lay people.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 11, 2014, 01:39:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 11, 2014, 01:35:13 PM
Not Guilty on Culpable Homicide either. That's 'Manslaughter' here yeah? So basically he's got off on all aspects of killing her. I can't believe that.
13.24 Court adjourns - Pistorius 'negligent'
Judge Masipa says Pistorius "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and was "negligent". She didn't, however, find him guilty of culpable homicide. She has adjourned until tomorrow, when she will deliver a verdict.
He fired through a closed door and someone is dead. How is he not culpable in her death?! :-\
Because he is a famous disabled athlete.
Quote from: deiseach on September 11, 2014, 01:42:52 PM
I find it oddly reassuring how members of the judiciary around the world share a sense of narcissism, self-obsession and complete indifference to how they appear to lay people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 11, 2014, 01:35:13 PM
Not Guilty on Culpable Homicide either. That's 'Manslaughter' here yeah? So basically he's got off on all aspects of killing her. I can't believe that.
13.24 Court adjourns - Pistorius 'negligent'
Judge Masipa says Pistorius "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and was "negligent". She didn't, however, find him guilty of culpable homicide. She has adjourned until tomorrow, when she will deliver a verdict.
No verdict yet on culpable homicide according to most sources??
My mistake. I read the following
Quote13.24 Court adjourns - Pistorius 'negligent'
Judge Masipa says Pistorius "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and was "negligent". She didn't, however, find him guilty of culpable homicide. She has adjourned until tomorrow, when she will deliver a verdict.
I assumed that meant she had found him not guilty. What they actually mean, I presume, is that no verdict at all was returned.
Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!
Quote from: screenexile on September 12, 2014, 09:54:48 AM
Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!
To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.
Quote from: GJL on September 12, 2014, 10:27:17 AM
Quote from: screenexile on September 12, 2014, 09:54:48 AM
Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!
To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.
Which means they must have accepted to some degree his story about thinking it was a burglar. Because if you don't accept that story, there isn't much left other than two people were in apartment and one shot the other knowingly.
Quote from: muppet on September 13, 2014, 05:49:26 PM
Quote from: GJL on September 12, 2014, 10:27:17 AM
Quote from: screenexile on September 12, 2014, 09:54:48 AM
Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!
To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.
Which means they must have accepted to some degree his story about thinking it was a burglar. Because if you don't accept that story, there isn't much left other than two people were in apartment and one shot the other knowingly.
I can't work out where he thought she was when went gun toting into the bathroom. If she's not with him in the bedroom and he knows she's in the apartment and there's someone in the toilet - the first thought isn't, oh it's a burglar lets riddle the place with bullets, it's oh Reeva must be in there! The man has literally got away with murder.
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 13, 2014, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 13, 2014, 05:49:26 PM
Quote from: GJL on September 12, 2014, 10:27:17 AM
Quote from: screenexile on September 12, 2014, 09:54:48 AM
Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!
To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.
Which means they must have accepted to some degree his story about thinking it was a burglar. Because if you don't accept that story, there isn't much left other than two people were in apartment and one shot the other knowingly.
I can't work out where he thought she was when went gun toting into the bathroom. If she's not with him in the bedroom and he knows she's in the apartment and there's someone in the toilet - the first thought isn't, oh it's a burglar lets riddle the place with bullets, it's oh Reeva must be in there! The man has literally got away with murder.
Everyone knows what happened, but the prosecution are unable or maybe even unwilling to prove it. His story about the burglar was absolute bullcrap, but he has stuck to it and without any other witnesses he is literally walking away from a murder. He is unlikely to serve any time in prison for the offence that he has been found guilty of.
I never thought he was guilty myself of intentionally killing her and I actually bought his burglar story, but that was based only on hearsay and media. The judge heard six months of evidence and came to the same conclusion. Good enough for me.
Was there any evidence of alcohol or drugs involved - or was this a sober shooting?
legless.
Quote from: Agent Orange on September 14, 2014, 02:43:48 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 13, 2014, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 13, 2014, 05:49:26 PM
Quote from: GJL on September 12, 2014, 10:27:17 AM
Quote from: screenexile on September 12, 2014, 09:54:48 AM
Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!
To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.
Which means they must have accepted to some degree his story about thinking it was a burglar. Because if you don't accept that story, there isn't much left other than two people were in apartment and one shot the other knowingly.
I can't work out where he thought she was when went gun toting into the bathroom. If she's not with him in the bedroom and he knows she's in the apartment and there's someone in the toilet - the first thought isn't, oh it's a burglar lets riddle the place with bullets, it's oh Reeva must be in there! The man has literally got away with murder.
Everyone knows what happened, but the prosecution are unable or maybe even unwilling to prove it. His story about the burglar was absolute bullcrap, but he has stuck to it and without any other witnesses he is literally walking away from a murder. He is unlikely to serve any time in prison for the offence that he has been found guilty of.
It has been a true feat of endurance to listen to his method acting evidence, his simpleton whiny, servile and obsequious manner. Maybe it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to contradict his story that when he allegedly woke up to find his partner not in bed, he then took out a shotgun and blew a hole in the bathroom door because he feared there was an intruder in there.
It does appear absolutely stupendous that this obvious pile of dung evidence has passed legal scrutiny and the prosecution have failed to prove otherwise.
I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever claimed to have woken up and found his partner not in bet. I understood his whole case was that he believed she WAS still in bed and therefore the person in the toilet had to be an intruder.
Quote from: Hardy on September 15, 2014, 12:46:50 AM
I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever claimed to have woken up and found his partner not in bet. I understood his whole case was that he believed she WAS still in bed and therefore the person in the toilet had to be an intruder.
Was she not in bed with him?
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 15, 2014, 06:16:41 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 15, 2014, 12:46:50 AM
I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever claimed to have woken up and found his partner not in bet. I understood his whole case was that he believed she WAS still in bed and therefore the person in the toilet had to be an intruder.
Was she not in bed with him?
Go and read up on the case ;)
Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 15, 2014, 08:02:55 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 15, 2014, 06:16:41 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 15, 2014, 12:46:50 AM
I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever claimed to have woken up and found his partner not in bet. I understood his whole case was that he believed she WAS still in bed and therefore the person in the toilet had to be an intruder.
Was she not in bed with him?
Go and read up on the case ;)
I understand that the vast majority of people who comment on thread topics on this board are experts in the field of which they are commenting on. But in this occasion I am not and lost interest in this case as it became more of a media event than a trial of the murder of a young woman. I was merely asking a question to clarify a small issue that I had with his defence, without the need to read up the pages and pages of coverage. ;)
Haven't been following this really. Two questions :
What was the reason put forward for him wanting to murder Reeva and what's the likely sentence for this verdict?
Sentence wise no idea how the south african judicial system works in terms of how long.
There can be no justifiable motive or reason for wanting to kill her but on my reading he was jealous maybe controlling etc and she was at times scared of him.
Maybe she wanted to end it or whatever.
Who knows and they can put forward as many reasons as they like. Only he knows the truth.
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 15, 2014, 08:46:48 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 15, 2014, 08:02:55 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 15, 2014, 06:16:41 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 15, 2014, 12:46:50 AM
I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever claimed to have woken up and found his partner not in bet. I understood his whole case was that he believed she WAS still in bed and therefore the person in the toilet had to be an intruder.
Was she not in bed with him?
Go and read up on the case ;)
I understand that the vast majority of people who comment on thread topics on this board are experts in the field of which they are commenting on. But in this occasion I am not and lost interest in this case as it became more of a media event than a trial of the murder of a young woman. I was merely asking a question to clarify a small issue that I had with his defence, without the need to read up the pages and pages of coverage. ;)
The story in my head is that they were in bed, he got up to go out on the balcony for something/to do something (can't remember what triggered this) heard some noise, came back in, grabbed the gun, went to the bathroom and started shooting. The suggestion was that, in his haste/panic, he didn't check/look at the bed and so assumed she was still in it and that the noise from the jacks was a burgularator.
Even if it was a burglar, which seems to be a fairly radical assumption to make given the circumstances, it's hard to believe that a valid reaction to that is to shoot, without warning, through a closed door. It's crazy stuff.
If I heard a noise in the bathroom, I'd assume it was the wife or kids. I don't think I'd grab the nearest gun and open up.
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 15, 2014, 12:30:51 PM
Even if it was a burglar, which seems to be a fairly radical assumption to make given the circumstances, it's hard to believe that a valid reaction to that is to shoot, without warning, through a closed door. It's crazy stuff.
If I heard a noise in the bathroom, I'd assume it was the wife or kids. I don't think I'd grab the nearest gun and open up.
About the best that can be said for it is that it's South Africa. A friend of mine lived in Pretoria for a couple of years and he said you didn't stop at red lights after 8pm.
Deiseach beat me to it. I do think a different set of norms applies there. People have told me, for instance, that if you have a car accident, even injuring/killing somebody, you don't stop but keep driving 'till you get to a police station or meet cops.
It seemed noticeable to me, in as far as I paid attention, that your question, AZ, didn't seem to arise in the trial, as if it was normal to shoot assumed burglars on sight (or even unseen).
I'm pretty sure that it was mentioned during the trial that even if you could prove that you thought it was a burglar behind the door - say, producing CCTV footage of you shouting "come out burglar or I shoot!" - this wasn't in itself an iron-clad defense.
Quote from: Hardy on September 15, 2014, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 15, 2014, 08:46:48 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 15, 2014, 08:02:55 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 15, 2014, 06:16:41 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 15, 2014, 12:46:50 AM
I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever claimed to have woken up and found his partner not in bet. I understood his whole case was that he believed she WAS still in bed and therefore the person in the toilet had to be an intruder.
Was she not in bed with him?
Go and read up on the case ;)
I understand that the vast majority of people who comment on thread topics on this board are experts in the field of which they are commenting on. But in this occasion I am not and lost interest in this case as it became more of a media event than a trial of the murder of a young woman. I was merely asking a question to clarify a small issue that I had with his defence, without the need to read up the pages and pages of coverage. ;)
The story in my head is that they were in bed, he got up to go out on the balcony for something/to do something (can't remember what triggered this) heard some noise, came back in, grabbed the gun, went to the bathroom and started shooting. The suggestion was that, in his haste/panic, he didn't check/look at the bed and so assumed she was still in it and that the noise from the jacks was a burgularator.
Cheers, this is what i thought and i suppose it is a different culture as has been mentioned but it seems an awful stretch to assume he just opened fire as a first course of action when it was highly plausible that his girlfriend could be in the toilet.
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2014, 12:46:44 PM
I'm pretty sure that it was mentioned during the trial that even if you could prove that you thought it was a burglar behind the door - say, producing CCTV footage of you shouting "come out burglar or I shoot!" - this wasn't in itself an iron-clad defense.
OK - didn't come across that.
I saw him on the stand and while his name may be Oscar he certainly won't be winning one. It was a pure charade. Totally unbelievable and obviously rehearsed to a tee from the Joey Tribbiani school of acting (I wonder did he have the tweezers in his pocket???!!!!).
I heard some SA journo saying that the prosecution would appeal if he wasn't foung guilty of murder and Pistorius was going to appeal any custodial sentence so this will run and run.
Why is sentencing going to take about a month?
Some of you lads can read up on the facts of the case when the book hits your local library :D
Or you could use google.
5 years
Could be considered for release after 1/6 of his sentence.
Effectively means 10 months behind bars and the rest in the house. Not a bad deal.
You didn't expect him to walk free,did you? ;D
He didn't have a leg to stand on.
I'll get my coat.
"Oscar Pistorius has had his conviction for killing his girlfriend changed from manslaughter to murder."
rightly so!!
Quote from: finbar o tool on December 03, 2015, 08:47:49 AM
"Oscar Pistorius has had his conviction for killing his girlfriend changed from manslaughter to murder."
rightly so!!
Agree.
Read the book Behind the door - Comes across as right spoilt headcase!
Quote from: WT4E on December 03, 2015, 10:12:56 AM
Quote from: finbar o tool on December 03, 2015, 08:47:49 AM
"Oscar Pistorius has had his conviction for killing his girlfriend changed from manslaughter to murder."
rightly so!!
Agree.
Read the book Behind the door - Comes across as right spoilt headcase!
Just read the judgement there in our legal system he would have been convicted of Manslaughter but the standard for intent is very low. Their appellate structure is also very strange and very active compared to our own.
That's the last we'll see of him for a right few summers
Athletics career/chance of a comeback gone completely now I'd say.
What a f**king publicity stump :o - hopefully he gets all he deserves!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36539610 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36539610)
Quote from: No wides on June 15, 2016, 01:26:43 PM
What a f**king publicity stump :o - hopefully he gets all he deserves!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36539610 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36539610)
Tell me that was intentional!!
;D
Sentenced to 6 years in prison.
...by the same judge who cleared him of the same offence. She sure must have the hots for him. Sick.
He got 5 years for manslaughter but 6 for murder!
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/africa/2023/03/30/oscar-pistorius-set-for-parole-hearing-10-years-after-killing-girlfriend/