Oscar Pistorius thread

Zethor · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:11

DannyDrama said:
So he should have remembered that throw away comment from months/years ago? What are YOU smoking? I'm neither for or against him but that's ridiculous.

Nothing ridiculous about it. He said, under oath, that he didn't know the term and the evidence showed the contrary. He said Reeva didn't scream, all the witnesses said she did. He said the shots were in a quick succession, the witnesses said there was a pause between the shots. He said he didn't have an argument, the witnesses heard an argument. He said he didn't fire his weapon in public places (restaurant, car), the witnesses said he did.

Maybe he didn't recall his comment from months ago but this little detail, along with all other ones, paint the picture of a gun nut with a bad temper, who lied about everything that happened that night, which is the prosecution's version of the events and the truth.

webhound · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:12

The prosecution clearly didn't think it ridiculous otherwise they wouldn't have out it to him.

DannyDrama · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:24

My point was just that with everything going on, no damn way would he remember that and calling it a deliberate lie is a bit too far for me.

I agree though, for the most part he looks stuffed but you can't say 'this is the truth', Zethor. You don't know any better than the rest of us, even if they throw away the key we won't know beyond a doubt what he was thinking when he pulled the trigger.

ElliorR · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:27

The prosecutor asked Pistorius could Reeva have gone downstairs and got some food without him knowing after they had gone to bed and Pistorius said he didn't think so. So he's saying the action of her getting up would have alerted him. But if his version of events is correct then, going by what he said, wouldn't he think the action of Reeva getting up to go to the bathroom have woken/alerted him?

He is so inconsistent in his evidence.

V-Spec · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:28

Zethor said:
Maybe he didn't recall his comment from months ago but this little detail, along with all other ones, paint the picture of a gun nut with a bad temper, who lied about everything that happened that night, which is the prosecution's version of the events and the truth.

Indeed, the prosecution is getting buried pretty deep now, OP has already made some pretty big mistakes and pretty much convicted himself, in relation to being reckless.

Also made me laugh, how he admitted he was in possession of the firearm in the restaurant - which went off, even though he maintained his finger wasn't on the trigger, yet it still went off - when pressed he still maintained his finger wasn't on the trigger, but it still went off. Instead he tried to redistribute a portion of the blame to the guy who gave him the gun, as opposed to himself.

AGD · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:34

I don't know if he intended to kill her or just shoot the door down. But either way, even it he thought it was a burglar, he's still going to jail for a long time.

Marmot · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:39

V-Spec said:
Also made me laugh, how he admitted he was in possession of the firearm in the restaurant - which went off, even though he maintained his finger wasn't on the trigger, yet it still went off - when pressed he still maintained his finger wasn't on the trigger, but it still went off. Instead he tried to redistribute a portion of the blame to the guy who gave him the gun, as opposed to himself.

Why did it make you laugh? You've never heard of guns going off without being intentionally fired, and without having a finger on a trigger?

[TW]Sponge · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:41

He's now claiming the policeman had moved the fan, put the duvet on the floor, and opened the curtains wider.

Lol guilty as sin. Changes his story all the time.

V-Spec · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:41

AGD said:
I don't know if he intended to kill her or just shoot the door down. But either way, even it he thought it was a burglar, he's still going to jail for a long time.

I think he was silly for pleading not guilty, it means everybody has to be dragged through the evidence, the families, friends everyone involved, there's going to be far less chance of any mitigation..

AGD · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:41

He's getting crucified over this photo. Sounds like he was trying to work out how it contradicted with his account rather than actually trying to remember what happened...

V-Spec · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:42

Osprey said:
Why did it make you laugh? You've never heard of guns going off without being intentionally fired, and without having a finger on a trigger?

It made me laugh, because he wouldn't answer the question - he did everything to evade it, he claims the gun just went off by itself, yet he was in control of it - and he tried to shift the blame from himself to someone else.

Zethor · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:44

AGD said:
I don't know if he intended to kill her or just shoot the door down. But either way, even it he thought it was a burglar, he's still going to jail for a long time.

If he had said from the start "I got angry and tried to shoot the door down.", it would've been impossible for the prosecution to prove intent. Instead, he made up a story which, as the trial shows, the prosecution is easily dismantling. He will now pay for cowardice too, along with murder.

Psypher5 · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:48

surely theyd take forensics to see if the items were moved etc?

Marmot · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:50

V-Spec said:
It made me laugh, because he wouldn't answer the question - he did everything to evade it, he claims the gun just went off by itself, yet he was in control of it - and he tried to shift the blame from himself to someone else.

I disagree, he answered the question repeatedly. He just wouldn't agree with the version of events the prosecution put to him. Maybe it sounded like he was shifting the blame, personally I thought his story was perfectly plausible. As for whether it is an honest account or not is another matter entirely.

V-Spec · 10 Apr 2014 at 13:53

Osprey said:
I disagree, he answered the question repeatedly. He just wouldn't agree with the version of events the prosecution put to him. Maybe it sounded like he was shifting the blame, personally I thought his story was perfectly plausible. As for whether it is an honest account or not is another matter entirely.

He did shift the blame:

"Oscar said to Darren, 'just say it was you. I don't want any tension around me. Just say it was you. Please take the blame for me, there's too much media hype around me'. And Darren took the blame for him."

The guys a shyster, won't take responsibility for acting like a dangerous tool,

Yas786 · 10 Apr 2014 at 14:00

ElliorR said:
The prosecutor asked Pistorius could Reeva have gone downstairs and got some food without him knowing after they had gone to bed and Pistorius said he didn't think so. So he's saying the action of her getting up would have alerted him. But if his version of events is correct then, going by what he said, wouldn't he think the action of Reeva getting up to go to the bathroom have woken/alerted him?

He is so inconsistent in his evidence.

This is the bit that has baffled me. If both of them were in bed and she got up to use the toilet surely he would have realised that she has got up. Im a deep sleeper myself but i know when the missus has got up out of bed etc. Same with the missus, she senses or knows when ive got up out of bed no matter how deep a sleep she is in.

MooMoo444 · 10 Apr 2014 at 14:01

Yas786 said:
This is the bit that has baffled me. If both of them were in bed and she got up to use the toilet surely he would have realised that she has got up. Im a deep sleeper myself but i know when the missus has got up out of bed etc. Same with the missus, she senses or knows when ive got up out of bed no matter how deep a sleep she is in.

Even if he didn't notice her get up (wasn't woken up) surely you would still notice yourself when you woke up, that your other half isn't in the bed.

StooM · 10 Apr 2014 at 14:03

Zethor said:
If he had said from the start "I got angry and tried to shoot the door down.", it would've been impossible for the prosecution to prove intent.

No it wouldn't. if he'd have said that would have proved intent.

Again, they have to try and prove that he intended to go to the bathroom and kill her for him to be found guilty. Bully boy tactics and trying to shove one side of an argument down his throat is a pressure tactic to get him to come 'clean'. Its all very well to villify him and attack him now, because that is what the prosecution is doing.

Try looking at the overall trial and there is very little evidence to suggest anything - its all a lot of hear say and very circumstantial evidence - nothing solid.

I'm on the fence and and willing to wait till the end to judge, not start off at that point

Zethor · 10 Apr 2014 at 14:12

StooM said:
Again, they have to try and prove that he intended to go to the bathroom and kill her for him to be found guilty.

So let me get this straight, If I shoot someone four times and they don't die, I can't be accussed of attempted murder because the prosecution has to prove without a doubt that I intended to make a kill? I can just say "I was aiming for the limbs, your honor, I am innocent!" and I walk with aggravated assault, right?

Whatever it is that you are smoking , it must be good stuff.

StooM · 10 Apr 2014 at 14:24

Zethor said:
So let me get this straight, If I shoot someone four times and they don't die, I can't be accussed of attempted murder because the prosecution has to prove without a doubt that I intended to make a kill? I can just say "I was aiming for the limbs, your honor, I am innocent!" and I walk with aggravated assault, right?

Whatever it is that you are smoking , it must be good stuff.

Sigh.

He isnt on trial for killing her, he's on trial for intentionally killing her - this was decided at the bail hearing last year.

Thus, if they can't prove that he intended to kill her then the prosecution hasnt done their job