Oscar Pistorius Trial

 

One thing i'm certain of from what I've read about his behaviour in the past, is that he has demonstrated anger and rage in other situations, and could be jealous, possessive and very controlling with Reeva.

 

Whatever the outcome there isn't much doubt he is mentally unstable.

 

 

 

 

are you being serious here janie?

 

you do know that there was a history of domestic violence and fascination with firearms?

 

that the man was emotionally unstable?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5wJ0PU-UZw#t=106

 

 

"Ms Steenkamp's text messages paint Pistorius as a jealous and possessive boyfriend, prone to anger"

I have never suggested he wasn't "emotionally unstable" See the previous post above stated at an earlier stage in the trial. Somewhere else on the thread I referred to the firearms issue too.

None of those facts prove murder with intent.

Off the high horse now. If you please.

You besmirch a whole nation and play the 'name-calling' card?

Your generalised statement is, quite simply, incorrect.

Therefore I do know that you do not 'know' it to be true.

OK?

I really don't accept your assertions that I'm a 'fool'. I rather frown upon name calling...

 

What makes you qualified to say I don't 'know' these things?...Do you know me?...Do you know my personal circumstances?...Do you 'know' how I might know these things?....No you don't!...So I'd appreciate you refraining from the name calling thank you.

 

Yes there are lots of good people in South Africa....People also who are utterly sick of the society that it's become....and yes I know that too!

None of those facts prove murder with intent

Occam's razor Janie

Just out of curiosity, what did you think of the OJ Simpson verdict?

 

There was a very good reason for not finding him guilty of murder, and that is that there just wasn't enough evidence provided by the prosecution team to convict him, in spite of all the time they had.

 

 

I don't give a toss what the feminists say, or you or anyone on here in this case.

As the trial continued I came to believe the manslaughter verdict was the correct one.

I'm not making any excuses for what he did, because even though he thought it was a burglar he shouldn't have fired those shots, or even possessed a gun, which is much the fault of the fearful paranoid society they are accustomed to over there.

As to your further comments, they are completely unrelated to this discussion, that's why I choose to ignore them.

 

He murdered Reeva Steenkamp, using a high powered pistol, as she was locked inside a small toilet cubicle.

Witnesses heard them arguing before this. Texts showed clearly the deceased was scared of Pistorius. They were alone. There was no intruder.

Reliable witnesses testified to hearing a woman screaming for her life, "blood curdling screams', before the shots were fired.

most of the Defence witnesses were humiliated.

Pistorius was shown to be dishonest, evasive and interested only in his own survival - not recounting truth. Pistorius contradicted himself, and simultaneously proferred more than one line of defence. Claiming, in turns, self defence, accidental discharge, psychological lack of responsibility, vulnerability as disabled (although armed with a loaded pistol !).

Despite all this, the judge has taken Pistorius' word that he did not intend to kill, and believed the defence version which was peppered with striking improbibilities, which made it "not reasonably possibly true",

He killed a defenseless person in a manner that strongly suggests premeditation and the foresight that his actions would kill. He has just been driven away from court,to do 10 months

you accept that Oscar could not expect the person behind the door to be killed by all the bullets he fired. To me this is weird beyond comprehension.

We live in a world where an unarmed woman, hiding in a bathroom, and screaming for help can be shot four times and just because the "experts" say it's not murder you go along with it ?have some common sense for gods sake !

but on the other hand it all could be a misunderstanding janie, Oscar just misunderstood when Reeva said that on Valentines day she wanted to be 'taken out'...

_______

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 04:38 ----------

Occam's razor Janie

 

Just out of curiosity, what did you think of the OJ Simpson verdict?

 

its called celebrity athletes verdict in the USA "this glove doesn't fit club" in SA the" Oscar p spew bucket club", its a set of laws for athletes and another set for non-athletes. You can get away with almost anything if only you can throw a ball well and run like you've got a rocket up your arse.

He murdered Reeva Steenkamp, using a high powered pistol, as she was locked inside a small toilet cubicle.

Witnesses heard them arguing before this. Texts showed clearly the deceased was scared of Pistorius. They were alone. There was no intruder.

Reliable witnesses testified to hearing a woman screaming for her life, "blood curdling screams', before the shots were fired.

most of the Defence witnesses were humiliated.

 

Pistorius was shown to be dishonest, evasive and interested only in his own survival - not recounting truth. Pistorius contradicted himself, and simultaneously proferred more than one line of defence. Claiming, in turns, self defence, accidental discharge, psychological lack of responsibility, vulnerability as disabled (although armed with a loaded pistol !).

 

Despite all this, the judge has taken Pistorius' word that he did not intend to kill, and believed the defence version which was peppered with striking improbibilities, which made it "not reasonably possibly true",

He killed a defenseless person in a manner that strongly suggests premeditation and the foresight that his actions would kill. He has just been driven away from court,to do 10 months

 

 

you accept that Oscar could not expect the person behind the door to be killed by all the bullets he fired. To me this is weird beyond comprehension.

We live in a world where an unarmed woman, hiding in a bathroom, and screaming for help can be shot four times and just because the "experts" say it's not murder you go along with it ?have some common sense for gods sake !

but on the other hand it all could be a misunderstanding janie, Oscar just misunderstood when Reeva said that on Valentines day she wanted to be 'taken out'...

 

_______

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 04:38 ----------

 

 

 

its called celebrity athletes verdict in the USA "this glove doesn't fit club" in SA the" Oscar p spew bucket club", its a set of laws for athletes and another set for non-athletes. You can get away with almost anything if only you can throw a ball well and run like you've got a rocket up your arse.

You have put this so well, and summed up the holes in the case perfectly. I wish we had a like button

Off the high horse now. If you please.

You besmirch a whole nation and play the 'name-calling' card?

 

Your generalised statement is, quite simply, incorrect.

Therefore I do know that you do not 'know' it to be true.

 

OK?

Ok...I'll bow to your far superior knowledge in this matter

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 11:01 ----------

He murdered Reeva Steenkamp, using a high powered pistol, as she was locked inside a small toilet cubicle.

Witnesses heard them arguing before this. Texts showed clearly the deceased was scared of Pistorius. They were alone. There was no intruder.

Reliable witnesses testified to hearing a woman screaming for her life, "blood curdling screams', before the shots were fired.

most of the Defence witnesses were humiliated.

 

Pistorius was shown to be dishonest, evasive and interested only in his own survival - not recounting truth. Pistorius contradicted himself, and simultaneously proferred more than one line of defence. Claiming, in turns, self defence, accidental discharge, psychological lack of responsibility, vulnerability as disabled (although armed with a loaded pistol !).

 

Despite all this, the judge has taken Pistorius' word that he did not intend to kill, and believed the defence version which was peppered with striking improbibilities, which made it "not reasonably possibly true",

He killed a defenseless person in a manner that strongly suggests premeditation and the foresight that his actions would kill. He has just been driven away from court,to do 10 months

 

 

you accept that Oscar could not expect the person behind the door to be killed by all the bullets he fired. To me this is weird beyond comprehension.

We live in a world where an unarmed woman, hiding in a bathroom, and screaming for help can be shot four times and just because the "experts" say it's not murder you go along with it ?have some common sense for gods sake !

but on the other hand it all could be a misunderstanding janie, Oscar just misunderstood when Reeva said that on Valentines day she wanted to be 'taken out'...

 

_______

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 04:38 ----------

 

 

 

its called celebrity athletes verdict in the USA "this glove doesn't fit club" in SA the" Oscar p spew bucket club", its a set of laws for athletes and another set for non-athletes. You can get away with almost anything if only you can throw a ball well and run like you've got a rocket up your arse.

Just to add to your comments (which I wholly agree with). I just can't help imagining myself in the same situation. If I heard what I believed to be intruders in my house...the very first thing I would do is shake, check, wake my partner and say.."Hey...did you hear' that?"....It's a completely normal thing to do....If 'his' story is to be believed....he definitely didn't do this....That's where his story falls down....Not to mention after firing the first shot.....She would have screamed....shouted..or whatever....and he would have known it was Reeva in the toilet cubicle....But no...he chose to fire another 3 bullets....Sorry....But he's as guilty as hell....Of murder....

The thing is he may have awoken this morning to find a real burglar in his bathroom.

A slap on the wrist but why should I be surprised. It's just another case of applying the celebrity clause when it comes to passing judgement

Occam's razor Janie

 

He murdered Reeva Steenkamp, using a high powered pistol, as she was locked inside a small toilet cubicle.

Witnesses heard them arguing before this. Texts showed clearly the deceased was scared of Pistorius. They were alone. There was no intruder.

Reliable witnesses testified to hearing a woman screaming for her life, "blood curdling screams', before the shots were fired.

most of the Defence witnesses were humiliated.

 

Pistorius was shown to be dishonest, evasive and interested only in his own survival - not recounting truth. Pistorius contradicted himself, and simultaneously proferred more than one line of defence. Claiming, in turns, self defence, accidental discharge, psychological lack of responsibility, vulnerability as disabled (although armed with a loaded pistol !).

 

Despite all this, the judge has taken Pistorius' word that he did not intend to kill, and believed the defence version which was peppered with striking improbibilities, which made it "not reasonably possibly true",

He killed a defenseless person in a manner that strongly suggests premeditation and the foresight that his actions would kill. He has just been driven away from court,to do 10 months

 

 

you accept that Oscar could not expect the person behind the door to be killed by all the bullets he fired. To me this is weird beyond comprehension.

We live in a world where an unarmed woman, hiding in a bathroom, and screaming for help can be shot four times and just because the "experts" say it's not murder you go along with it ?have some common sense for gods sake !

but on the other hand it all could be a misunderstanding janie, Oscar just misunderstood when Reeva said that on Valentines day she wanted to be 'taken out'...

 

_______

Even if he is guilty of murder with intent he isn't going to escape suffering, and if he's guilty and has any remorse it will haunt him for the rest of his life and he will never have any peace.

How could anyone other then someone totally evil live with that on their conscience?

The culpable homicide conviction has been changed to murder by the courts. He's not been re-sentenced yet but they've just said on the news that he's looking at between 15 and 20 years.

I'm very surprised by this. It's a pity the judge dismissed the accounts from the witnesses who said they had heard arguing though.

Good job by the SA court, quite bizarre he still gets to live at home over Christmas 'because the court is in recess' but at least justice has been done now.