Oscar Pistorius

[Footsoldier]

It's on this YouTube News footage if you really want to see it...

warning: not for those with a sensitive constitution.

Thanks Bold Seagull. I have received a few PMs with links and pictures so thanks to all that have craved my lust

I don't need to look any more on the net and I ventured into the darkest parts of the net to find this clip/picture. Came across 3 men and a hammer and far worse

Seeing her brains hanging out is not nice and it's all very well him booing but his crocodile tears don't wash with me. She was a beautiful lady who died at the hands of a jealous nutter.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I can't be bothered to pick out every example but you lot on this thread trying to find evidence of why he's an insane killer is hilarious!

There's any number of reasons why one partner might go to bed earlier than the other, especially if they weren't getting on as has been reported.



This sequence of event is plausible:

1) Oscar hears a noise that wakes him up and because he's a paranoid nutcase his first thought is intruders. He doesn't bother to check for his girlfriend because deep down he's a selfish and narcissistic character, and a bit thick.

2) He shouts out for the intruders to leave, Riva hears this and thinks "shit there's burglers in the house, I'd better lock myself in the toilet while Oscar gets rid of them"

3) Oscar hears the toilet door shut and thinks "the burglers have locked themselves in, I've got them now"

4) He runs to the toilet on his stumps and unloads his gun into the door. Only then does he think of his bird, because of the reasons given in point 1. The rest is history. He can't admit all that because he's trying not to get sent down, so is just playing ignorant.

I think that is much more plausible than him being the cold blooded killer who murdered his girlfriend on purpose.

That would however make him a cold blooded killer who thought he was murdering burglers and accidently murdered his girlfriend by mistake. He still needs to go down for it, but that's what he means when he says it was an accident.

The whole world seems to be going all tabloid and taking things out of context because they want to believe he had an argument, chased her into the toilet and killed her.

Really? Where's he shouting for intruders to leave where Reeva can run past and into the bathroom without him noticing? You're saying she doesn't say a thing, doesn't ask him where he is, what's going on, what to do, should she phone the police, you're saying she just silently but completely believing his paranoia locks herself in the bathroom? He then walks back into the bedroom area (he can't have been in there while shouting as he'd have seen or heard Reeva get out of bed and run to the bathroom) and shoots into the door?

That's more bonkers than his current story!

No, the most plausible story is that they have a massive fight / argument, she says she's leaving, doesn't love him anymore and he starts going mental, starts to get violent, she runs into the bathroom and locks the door, in his rage he gets his gun, and shoots through the door. This is Jimmy Hendrix's Hey Joe for real.

 

[clippedgull]

As far as I can see firing four shots into a door that you know someone is behind means you're pretty likely to end up killing that person, whoever it was, and that's murder. To say he didn't intend to kill that person is bollocks. As far as the issue of murder is concerned it doesn't matter whether it was an intruder or Reeva.

But in South Africa I think they see a defence of 'justified homicide' if you are in fear of your life. So if he convinces the judge that he thought there was a burglar behind the door he is a free man.

Maybe [MENTION=9822]KZNSeagull[/MENTION] could clarify?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Sorry, probably not been keeping up, but in the absence of a jury, who is it that delivers the verdict? Notice from TV footage that the judge tends to walk out whenever OP goes into a sobbing fit. Is this to keep her impartial, or is there a wider picture?

 

[clippedgull]

Sorry, probably not been keeping up, but in the absence of a jury, who is it that delivers the verdict? Notice from TV footage that the judge tends to walk out whenever OP goes into a sobbing fit. Is this to keep her impartial, or is there a wider picture?

The judge decides guilt or otherwise.

 

[Footsoldier]

Sick ****. No offence.

Why have you edited your laughing smiley to 'No Offence' for?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The judge decides guilt or otherwise.

Cheers

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Why have you edited your laughing smiley to 'No Offence' for?

Cos I decided after I posted that it wasn't really something to smile about.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I can't be bothered to pick out every example but you lot on this thread trying to find evidence of why he's an insane killer is hilarious!

There's any number of reasons why one partner might go to bed earlier than the other, especially if they weren't getting on as has been reported.



This sequence of event is plausible:

1) Oscar hears a noise that wakes him up and because he's a paranoid nutcase his first thought is intruders. He doesn't bother to check for his girlfriend because deep down he's a selfish and narcissistic character, and a bit thick.

2) He shouts out for the intruders to leave, Riva hears this and thinks "shit there's burglers in the house, I'd better lock myself in the toilet while Oscar gets rid of them"

3) Oscar hears the toilet door shut and thinks "the burglers have locked themselves in, I've got them now"

4) He runs to the toilet on his stumps and unloads his gun into the door. Only then does he think of his bird, because of the reasons given in point 1. The rest is history. He can't admit all that because he's trying not to get sent down, so is just playing ignorant.

I think that is much more plausible than him being the cold blooded killer who murdered his girlfriend on purpose.

That would however make him a cold blooded killer who thought he was murdering burglers and accidently murdered his girlfriend by mistake. He still needs to go down for it, but that's what he means when he says it was an accident.

The whole world seems to be going all tabloid and taking things out of context because they want to believe he had an argument, chased her into the toilet and killed her.

I am convinced he is an insane killer. What we are trying to work out is how the prosecution are going to prove it.

Indeed, many couples go to bed at different times. The one staying awake does not usually stay in the room awake, locked in, whilst the other one is asleep though do they?

I know what he means is an accident. He says shooting Reeva was an accident. Nel is trying to ascertain whether he means that the gun went off accidentally (4 times!).

He is a cold blooded killer, whether he meant to be one or not. No-one, not even a paranoid South African thickhead like Oscar shoots blindly through a door, knowing there is someone behind it without expecting that there is a good chance they are going to kill them. Is that not the actions of an insane person? Amazingly, and contrary to some people's ideas about SA, what he did was against the law, full stop, even if it was burglars. He is not defending himself because he was not in any imminent danger.

To many, including many in this country that is apparently so violent and dangerous, his story stinks. The argument and shooting her one is far more plausible than his version.

 

[KZNSeagull]

But in South Africa I think they see a defence of 'justified homicide' if you are in fear of your life. So if he convinces the judge that he thought there was a burglar behind the door he is a free man.

Maybe @KZNSeagull could clarify?

Only if you are in imminent danger.

So, man jumps over your fence into your garden. you shoot him: Verdict - Murder.
Man is in your house with no weapon. You shoot him. Verdict: Murder.
Man is in your house with a weapon, but you are not threatened with weapon. Verdict: Murder.
Man is in your house and threatens you with a weapon. You shoot him. Verdict: Self defence, not murder.

What Oscar did, even if it were burglars in the toilet, is not self defence as there was no imminent threat. At least that is how I understand it.

Culpable Homicide fits into the above somewhere, but not sure where.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Sorry, probably not been keeping up, but in the absence of a jury, who is it that delivers the verdict? Notice from TV footage that the judge tends to walk out whenever OP goes into a sobbing fit. Is this to keep her impartial, or is there a wider picture?

Judge delivers verdict, aided by the 2 assessors sitting either side of her.
They keep adjourning when Oscar is sobbing as he cannot answer questions. But Nel and the Judge are getting fed up with this now, hence why Nel was asking today why he was getting upset about certain questions. Adjourned this morning after the head incident. Adjourned early yesterday when describing how he found Reeva in toilet. This afternoon, he lasted a whole hour!

 

[KZNSeagull]

I will also add, that perhaps the law in some cases is not as strictly upheld as it may otherwise be in the UK. I suspect, although I have no proof, that if it were burglars in the toilet, it is highly unlikely that he would be charged with murder.

Put it this way, I know of someone who ran over a car highjacker (he jumped out into the middle of the road in front of this man's car, pointing a gun at the car. The driver put his foot down, basically). He reported it to the nearest police station, they went back to the scene (30 mins or so after the event), found no body as it had been removed by his fellow highjackers. That is about as far as the investigation went. Whether that is right or wrong, that is for you to decide.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

One things for sure if this guy is found guilty expect him to be found swinging before a month is up. He wont last five minutes in prison, unless this sobbing performance is a huge show for either sympathy or if found guilty to go into a cushy hospital.

 

[champion7]

I've heard his defence is better than man utd's, I hang my head in shame.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Accordiing to earlier evidence he tried to smash the door down with a cricket bat before firing his gun through the door.
Wouldn't Reeva had screamed as he battered at the door...therefore Oscar knew who was in there...and because he couldn't get at her,in his already inflamed mental state he lost it...the thruth will come out,with or without his crocodile tears.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Accordiing to earlier evidence he tried to smash the door down with a cricket bat before firing his gun through the door.
Wouldn't Reeva had screamed as he battered at the door...therefore Oscar knew who was in there...and because he couldn't get at her,in his already inflamed mental state he lost it...the thruth will come out,with or without his crocodile tears.

He says that he shot, then realised it was Reeva in there, so then he kicked the door and then used cricket bat to break the door. There were two sets of bangs, both sounding like gunshots so there is some conjecture which came first. I am sure Nel will have a go at this later in the cross exam.

 

[fat old seagull]

The whole world seems to be going all tabloid and taking things out of context because they want to believe he had an argument, chased her into the toilet and killed her.

The Whole World surely can't be wrong on this one Billy. He has serious anger problems, and just lost it !

 

[Billy the Fish]

Really? Where's he shouting for intruders to leave where Reeva can run past and into the bathroom without him noticing? You're saying she doesn't say a thing, doesn't ask him where he is, what's going on, what to do, should she phone the police, you're saying she just silently but completely believing his paranoia locks herself in the bathroom? He then walks back into the bedroom area (he can't have been in there while shouting as he'd have seen or heard Reeva get out of bed and run to the bathroom) and shoots into the door?

That's more bonkers than his current story!

No, the most plausible story is that they have a massive fight / argument, she says she's leaving, doesn't love him anymore and he starts going mental, starts to get violent, she runs into the bathroom and locks the door, in his rage he gets his gun, and shoots through the door. This is Jimmy Hendrix's Hey Joe for real.

Prove it!!!

To be fair I haven't studied all the evidence so I don't know minor details like room layout, which doors were locked so I expect there's all sorts of holes in that theory but the jist of it is not impossible. I just wanted to point out that speculating by applying your own logic and behaviour patterns to another person doesn't work.

I am convinced he is an insane killer. What we are trying to work out is how the prosecution are going to prove it.

Indeed, many couples go to bed at different times. The one staying awake does not usually stay in the room awake, locked in, whilst the other one is asleep though do they?

I know what he means is an accident. He says shooting Reeva was an accident. Nel is trying to ascertain whether he means that the gun went off accidentally (4 times!).

He is a cold blooded killer, whether he meant to be one or not. No-one, not even a paranoid South African thickhead like Oscar shoots blindly through a door, knowing there is someone behind it without expecting that there is a good chance they are going to kill them. Is that not the actions of an insane person? Amazingly, and contrary to some people's ideas about SA, what he did was against the law, full stop, even if it was burglars. He is not defending himself because he was not in any imminent danger.

To many, including many in this country that is apparently so violent and dangerous, his story stinks. The argument and shooting her one is far more plausible than his version.

I think that only Reeva and Oscar will ever know the truth of what actually happened. Even if Oscar tells the truth half the world won't believe him anyway.

I agree totally that whatever way you look at it he shot another human through a door without knowing who was on the other side, he's going down for murder and thoroughly deserves to as well. I think I'm just a bit more willing to give him the benefit of doubt that he thought it was a burgler on the other side and not his bird, purely because you can't prove either way. They don't even seem to be focussing on that in court though, it's all smoke and mirrors about what constitutes an accident

 

[Bold Seagull]

Prove it!!!

To be fair I haven't studied all the evidence so I don't know minor details like room layout, which doors were locked so I expect there's all sorts of holes in that theory but the jist of it is not impossible. I just wanted to point out that speculating by applying your own logic and behaviour patterns to another person doesn't work.

So you were pointing out that speculating by applying your own logic doesn't work.......by speculating and applying your own logic! Do you also go by the name Columbo?

 

[Billy the Fish]

So you were pointing out that speculating by applying your own logic doesn't work.......by speculating and applying your own logic! Do you also go by the name Columbo?

Don't worry about that, I'm like the love child of Poirot and Miss Marple! .......or possibly not, this is a bit like trying to prove to you and vegster that England are good at cricket!

Ok how about this: She woke up and had a pi$$ and the flush is what woke Oscar in the first place. She is half way out of the door at the exact moment he shouts about the burglers so shuts it and locks it, the other points still stand. Does that work? Or has he already scuppered that with his statement?