"Blade Runner" Oscar Pistorius shoots his girlfriend

  • Thread starter DQuaN
  • 277 comments
  • 18,492 views
Johnnypenso
But one piece of anecdotal evidence that one woman was afraid of her boyfriend is only evidence she's in a bad relationship..hardly an indictable offense.
Click to expand...
No, but put it in context. Multiple witnesses have testified that they heard fighting from the house before the shooting. Others have testified that Pistorius was well aware of gun laws and that he had a history of reckless behaviour around them. Forensic evidence has discredited Pistorius' statement about the events that night. And now we have text messages from the victim where she describes that she was afraid of him.

Even in the case of one person shooting another in broad daylight, no one piece of evidence is going to convict the accused. The police would need to demonstrate that the bullet came from a particular gun, that the accused was in possession or had access to that gun, and that the accused had fired a gun. Even then, they would need to prove that the accused was close enough to the victim at the time to shoot them. That's four pieces of evidence for a simple, straightforward case.

The same applies here. The text messages alone won't convict Pistorius, but when examined alongside all of the other evidence, it does not look good for him.
 
prisonermonkeys
No, but put it in context. Multiple witnesses have testified that they heard fighting from the house before the shooting. Others have testified that Pistorius was well aware of gun laws and that he had a history of reckless behaviour around them. Forensic evidence has discredited Pistorius' statement about the events that night. And now we have text messages from the victim where she describes that she was afraid of him.

Even in the case of one person shooting another in broad daylight, no one piece of evidence is going to convict the accused. The police would need to demonstrate that the bullet came from a particular gun, that the accused was in possession or had access to that gun, and that the accused had fired a gun. Even then, they would need to prove that the accused was close enough to the victim at the time to shoot them. That's four pieces of evidence for a simple, straightforward case.

The same applies here. The text messages alone won't convict Pistorius, but when examined alongside all of the other evidence, it does not look good for him.
Click to expand...

Unless his defense brings up the how cops messed things up and apparently stole watches from his room.
 
Not given my opinion in this thread yet:

After reading news ticker on the trial, the story...
I really hope this guy will do his time behind bars. He seems like an uttermost piece of tyranic, egoistic, narcistic little *****.
This guy is a nutjob. Remember the dramaqueen he was for getting into the Olympics?

And all the crying. Omg. What a tactic to play the wimp. Nearly nobody in the world falls for that.
He should have worn a too small glove and play the OJ card :lol:

The not allowing the gf to chew chewinggum.
The incident in the restaurant.
The other gun releated incidents (traffic stop,..)

What a douche. Weather he is guilty or not, the judge decides. I think he did it on purpose (my opinion)
 
Grayfox
Unless his defense brings up the how cops messed things up and apparently stole watches from his room.
Click to expand...
He claims things were moved around the room after the shooting, but before crime scene photos were taken - but he hasn't provided any proof of it, other than recounting a series of events that contradicts the photos. It's his word against the police.

As for the watches, the issue was brought up and addressed by the prosecution. It's unlikely to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury.
 
Right. Different system.

The point is that it is just a misdirect. Yes, it's an issue that needs to be addressed, but as far as I am aware, no evidence has been offered to support the idea that the police were negligent or trying to implicate him. Pistorius tried to bring it up under cross-examination by suggesting that things had been moved, but it was his word against that of the police.

It's also an added complication. Pistorius has spent a year claiming that he accidentally shot Steenkamp when he thought he was defending himself against a burglar. That part has not changed, but now he is also claiming that the authorities were out to get him from the outset. That sounds like the sort of thing you would want to bring up early.
 
It's the argument of impending defeat - "they had it in for me guv'nor!".

In other mildly-on-topic news I read yesterday of a condition called "Oscarpistosis" which leaves female sufferers terrified to use the bathroom at their boyfriend's house.
 
The trial, in a further attempt to show that South Africa has no idea how TV shows work, is finally summing up after 4 months.

Pistorius is accused of creating a "snowball of evidence", there's some kind of "off-Pist-orius" joke there but I can't quite work it out.
 
It's easier to say than "unlucky thirteen", in this case. Though the typical baker's dozen bonus at our local breadshop once went up to eighteen...
 
I watched a fair bit of the closing arguments, and quite frankly I couldn't believe what the defence were saying, in more ways than one. Firstly, the entire defence case seems to rely on a single premise, which is "You're not going to believe this, but... ". I honestly believe that the defence team - and Pistorius himself - think that we are stupid. Also, they also expect us to believe that the witnesses who heard the arguments, the gun shots and the screaming are all liars - it's possible, but I don't believe it. Secondly, the defence lawyer chose a horrible, horrible line of defence for the summing up - saying that he 'snapped' like an abused woman who kills her husband after years of abuse. Could they have chosen a less appropriate analogy? Likening Pistorius to a victim of domestic abuse is not going to sit well with a female judge well-known for her tough stance on domestic abusers. Making Pistorius out to be the victim is also horribly misjudged as well. That he 'snapped' is also a very damning choice of phrase - that's not how Pistorius described his actions at all. How could he have calmly told Reeva to stay where she was, or whatever BS he claims he said (to an empty bed!) and gone to investigate the noise he heard in the bathroom, and behave the way his defence team are saying he did? That line of defence flatly contradicts what Pistorius himself has said throughout the trial. Also, playing the 'he snapped because he's disabled' was really awful - the defence lawyer claims that years of torment on account of his disability led him to possess an 'exaggerated response to danger' - of course, there was no danger - this is something that Pistorius and his defence team have had to invent for their story to make any sense, and they haven't done a very good job of it. Of course, they've also left out the bit about his violent temper - perhaps that is another consequence of his disability, but at least it is more consistent with the truth than this idea that, not only did Pistorius (wrongly) perceive danger (when there wasn't any), but he has an exaggerated response to danger that means he is likely to 'snap' and shoot at the slightest provocation. Yeh, right. Finally, the defence team's admission that Pistorius is guilty of negligence in a prior shooting incident was about the first bit of honesty to come out of that team - but boy, what a moment to change your story and admit to the judge that your client has been dishonest and is infact guilty of reckless behaviour with firearms.
 
Girl cheated his man and pretended everything is ok, the man went crazy and killed her like a psycho.
Sad story but really nothing new. I feel sorry for the girl for being killed and I feel sorry for the man for being cheated. And yes, I do realize being killed is much worse than being cheated, but still.
Now he will end his days behind bars.
End of this sad story.
 
When your credibility is in the basement, there isn't much lower that you can go.

-

I guess the only question now is how many decades he's going to get in jail.
 
The judge is currently giving her verdict..

So far, I've only heard the judge speak for a few seconds, but she has already said that most of the witnesses who say they heard screams and gunshots are unreliable and/or were influenced by news reports before giving evidence.
 
Touring Mars
The judge is currently giving her verdict..

So far, I've only heard the judge speak for a few seconds, but she has already said that most of the witnesses who say they heard screams and gunshots are unreliable and/or were influenced by news reports before giving evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm currently watching it now. The judge had a choice to deliver witness accounts from circumstantial media-driven experience, and phone records. She chose the phone records, and read the transcript of each record in chronological order. So far it seems to be favouring the defence.
niky

I guess the only question now is how many decades he's going to get in jail.
Click to expand...
He can get either 15 years or life imprisonment. The optional sentence of indefinite house arrest is also possible.
 
Last edited:
2clicks
So far it seems to be favouring the defence.
Click to expand...
At the same time, she has said that the autopsy report contradicts Pistorius' account of the night, and that the ballistics report is inconsistent with his claim that he wasn't aiming to kill or injure.
 
Indeed, the first part of the verdict was entirely in the defense's favour... it's not going quite so well now, however.

edit: Not guilty of pre-meditated murder
 
Last edited:
Not guilty of common-law murder, either.

The possibility of a life sentence is pretty much off the table now, but the judge has flagged culpable homicide as a potential charge.
 
It's odd that there is no jury in this case and the judge decides the outcome alone. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the culpable homicide charge.
 
Robin.
It's odd that there is no jury in this case and the judge decides the outcome alone. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the culpable homicide charge.
Click to expand...

South Africa, thank heavens, does not use the jury system at all. A retired judge on the OP channel compared a jury (Made up of a bunch of emotional & legally ignorant lay people) to a lottery...

My guess is: Guilty of culpable homicide & a suspended sentence. Guilty of weapons charges with stiff fines.
 
Jaywalker
South Africa, thank heavens, does not use the jury system at all. A retired judge on the OP channel compared a jury (Made up of a bunch of emotional & legally ignorant lay people) to a lottery...
Click to expand...

I agree to a certain extent that leaving the decision up to a bunch of randomers especially in such a high profile case can be a lottery but to quote the film 'Runaway Jury'... "The jury system was created so that a judge couldn't hang some kid just because he didn't like the look of him"

Convincing a bunch of people as opposed to one person is much harder. Plus the prosecution and defence can tailor their arguments to fit with the judges personal background, one that they will know very well compared to an anonymous jury.
 
Robin.
I agree to a certain extent that leaving the decision up to a bunch of randomers especially in such a high profile case can be a lottery but to quote the film 'Runaway Jury'... "The jury system was created so that a judge couldn't hang some kid just because he didn't like the look of him"

Convincing a bunch of people as opposed to one person is much harder. Plus the prosecution and defence can tailor their arguments to fit with the judges personal background, one that they will know very well compared to an anonymous jury.
Click to expand...
But you know how much flak the judge is getting? Tweets saying that the judge, if she finds Pistorius not guilty, can influence men who find it okay to murder their significant others and get off scot-free if they can produce a strong enough defense are cropping up, and considering the constitution regarding fair trials in this country, I can kind of see it happening. (Not with me of course.)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

F1jocker12
The spy who came in from al-Qaeda
Replies
0
Views
517
F1jocker12
F1jocker12
Ibonibo
The real Movies ending * True story bro!*
Replies
10
Views
4K
prisonermonkeys
prisonermonkeys
M
Directory listing
Replies
28
Views
79K
toyomatt84
toyomatt84

Latest Posts

Back