Oscar Pistorius thread

Inappropriate comment removed.

I said it in the original thread I reckon she used him to reach fame and now threatened to ruin his career, I bet he was doping.
 
I found it weird the police were revealing so much information to the media to begin with because they were allowing the public to judge him without a trial but the more that's released the more you feel they had him bang to rights as soon as he had done it.
 
Was reading on the Daily mail website that after doing what he did, he supposedly called his best friend and told him that he had killed her gf. I dont know how true that allegation is as its a Daily mail article but if true then surely he cannot get away with this..despite his family saying he did not murder her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...shooting-girlfriend-Reeva-Steenkamp-dead.html

If it is true what he done then what an evil man he is, hopefully justice will prevail and if hes found guilty, then lock him up for life.
 
It's been reported elsewhere, as the source is his friend.

Only the Police with access to phone records could say otherwise if it wasn't true.
 
Yas786 said:
Was reading on the Daily mail website that after doing what he did, he supposedly called his best friend and told him that he had killed her gf. I dont know how true that allegation is as its a Daily mail article but if true then surely he cannot get away with this..despite his family saying he did not murder her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...shooting-girlfriend-Reeva-Steenkamp-dead.html

If it is true what he done then what an evil man he is, hopefully justice will prevail and if hes found guilty, then lock him up for life.
Click to expand...

You can kill someone without intending to kill them!
 
All his friend says is he phoned him and said he accidently killed her? I don't see how him saying he accidently killed her is anything new, or proving he's guilty of murder?
 
I think we have to be a little careful judging just yet. Whilst it seems the noise coming out its quite condemning we should not forget there might be other agendas here. It started as a tragic accident and now he is Charles Manson so a little time to pick through it all is required I feel.
 
It is quite hard to believe it was an accident and he though she was an intruder if she was in a nightie, she was shot four times, there is a cricket bat covered in blood found at the scene of the crime.
 
if she was in a nightie, there is a cricket bat covered in blood found at the scene of the crime.
Click to expand...

We dont know if these points are even true though as they have come from unverified sources that the media have picked up on. Until there is evidence/an official statement about these points its pure speculation.

Tbh I think the police were a bit out of line to even mention previous call outs of a 'domestic nature' at all - it may be relevant to their investigation but it has served no purpose other than vilify him in the eyes of the media and their audience - trial by media in my eyes. He could have had a loud dog and got complaint/party that got out of hand - at this point no one but the police know what they meant so there is little point speculating without the facts.

Dont get me wrong - if it is proven in the court of law that he meant to do what he did, then he deserves everything that comes his way but lets wait until that point before we all start castigating him..

as for the guys saying he should hang himself :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
IMO he will claim that he did it in his sleep, what other possible alibi does he have to plead not guilty? or is he just pleading not guilty to it being premeditated?
 
Hes arguing that he thought she was an intruder and he shot in pre-emptive self defence (reading between the lines of his statement) and didnt plan/decide to kill her as it sounds like the police are claiming.

No one is disputing he pulled the trigger..
 
My post was in reference to this article:
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/bloody-cricket-bat-found-at-pistorius-home-20130217-2ela8.html

Reading that it doesn't sound like the burglar angle will stand up in court? he knew that she was in the house, she was wearing a nightie at the time, she was shot four times and apparently bludgeoned with a cricket bat... even if it was pitch black he would surely have realised early on that it was her as soon as she made a noise/screamed?

Granted the info in article may not be accurate.
 
Has anyone else heard anything to back up the statment she was only the toilet when shot, supposed to be buller holes through the bathroom door. This did come from the bastion of truefulness the Sun though, I cant see how the jury couldnt not have some prejudice one way or another though.
 
Nothing concrete (the police havn't given any details yet - will be Tuesday for that I'd imagine) - Ive read conflicting things saying she was found in the bathroom/that he carried her downstairs trying to save her etc. pure speculation at this point unfortunately.

Thing that doesn't make sense with the 'cricket bat' is that surely if you smack someone in the head hard enough to fracture their skull, they are in pretty bad shape, so why then pull out a gun and be a remarkably bad shot with it - why not just hit them again?

I still want to hear what OP says happened as he/his team seem very certain it wasn't pre-meditated (even rubbishing some forensic evidence the police have I believe) so must have some proof/something up their sleeves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom