General Discussion Thread #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it would be more relevant to ask the question as follows: If Reeva shot OP through a locked bathroom door and then claimed she believed he was an intruder, would we accept this without supporting evidence or would we speculate something else could have occurred?
I wasn't meaning for the discussion to be about the minor details, just that it was being discussed that we may just be reacting totally different if the roles were reversed. And we can't even use Reeva as an example in that kind of debate because if Reeva shot OP, no matter the circumstances, we all know she would be crucified. That's why I said a famous female star of some sort.
 
Lolol Zinn, I'm sure I quoted something different and responded to that? Lawd, this I must call it a night!!! :D
 
BBM.

This is good to know. Do you recall when this was stated by defense? Which day of the bail hearing? I'd like to go back and look for the quote to see exactly what information they confirmed. TIA.

I think the defense had another phone that OP used, they said Botha hadn't asked were there any phones other than the ones collected. Nel said why did OP not volunteer it. The defence or OP should have handed it over to the police, just another attempt to make them look shoddy.
 
I agree that some will believe he is guilty of purposely murdering Reeva regardless of supporting evidence to the contrary. I am also aware there are many people willing to believe OP's claims with no supporting evidence to back his claims, and perhaps even conflicting information. It goes both ways.

I will be willing to believe OP's statements if reliable corroborating evidence is presented. I haven't seen any yet, but I am open to it. I am already disturbed by the way Roux is phrasing things, often appearing to keep options open rather than stating what he believes to be fact. I know that's his job, but it plants seeds of doubt in my mind and gives me the impression he is not confident in the truth of his client's statements.

BBM. With much respect, I kind of disagree. On this thread, there are many people who are 100% convinced of OP's guilt. The rest are on the fence. I have not seen anyone yet who is 100% convinced of his innocence or who believe him no matter what.

Instead, people like me are simply open to this being a monstrous accident and want information. So really, it is only certain people convinced of his guilt who will continue to feel that way regardless of what he does or says or what the evidence shows, IMO.
 
Not sure if this has been noted, aside from the links to the articles themselves, but the cover of the YOU mag certainly deals in pretty sombre, doom-laden vocabulary. One or two slightly ominous adjectives thrown in there as hand-grenades, too: :

RUINED!
volatile hothead...
doomed love
troubled sport hero's mind...


cover4.jpg


I haven't dared look at the magazine itself for fear I might see Kate's t*ts or something (I'm very glad to see the Gravid Duchess still takes preference at the top of the page), but I'd say they are definitely not completely on board with the "accidental" thing.
Lol. This is the mag that I quoted from earlier...not much new news in there. I can see this was rushed as they went to print before Oscar got bail but I suspect next week they will have 102 pages dedicated to the case, hopefully some new pics not on the net yet!
 
From journalist Barry Bateman inside the courtroom: "Autopsy found bullet wound to right side of head. No sign of assault. “@V_Gounden: crushed skull, true or false?"
 
I wasn't meaning for the discussion to be about the minor details, just that it was being discussed that we may just be reacting totally different if the roles were reversed. And we can't even use Reeva as an example in that kind of debate because if Reeva shot OP, no matter the circumstances, we all know she would be crucified. That's why I said a famous female star of some sort.

Okay, then I'll say I would prefer a conversation about what the reaction would be if a famous woman shot her boyfriend through a locked door and then claimed she thought he was an intruder, eliminating the leading question about abuse. Yes, some people might wonder if she had been abused, but I doubt that would be the only popular scenario considered.

JMO
 
BBM. With much respect, I kind of disagree. On this thread, there are many people who are 100% convinced of OP's guilt. The rest are on the fence. I have not seen anyone yet who is 100% convinced of his innocence or who believe him no matter what.

Instead, people like me are simply open to this being a monstrous accident and want information. So really, it is only certain people convinced of his guilt who will continue to feel that way regardless of what he does or says or what the evidence shows, IMO.

Quoting myself to say this: Let me clear that I don;t have a problem with people being convinced he is guilty (as long as they are still able to logically examine all evidence). I often come to such conclusions based on my gut and logic and what has been released and the use of logic and instinct drives most investigations so there is nothing wrong with it driving us.

We are not jurors. We don't have to wait to determine whether we feel he is guilty or not. For example, I didn't need to watch the casey anthony trial to know whether she was guilty or not. Her perp walk was enough for me, plus the 31 days. Common sense can be very helpful.

For me, I;m not there with Pistorius yet, based in part on a little knowledge I have of how LE operates in different areas of the world and crime and gun accidents in the RSA. But I don't fault others who may be.
 
the cricket bat he was supposed to have beaten her with was all media speculation, it may have blood on it, I am sure the bathroom/toilet area was very bloody so blood may have transferred onto it,

the bat was used only to break the door so he could get into the toilet



Joe -- Is it purely speculation Reeva's back of her skull was crushed in?

Or is someone making this up?
 
BBM. With much respect, I kind of disagree. On this thread, there are many people who are 100% convinced of OP's guilt. The rest are on the fence. I have not seen anyone yet who is 100% convinced of his innocence or who believe him no matter what.

Instead, people like me are simply open to this being a monstrous accident and want information. So really, it is only certain people convinced of his guilt who will continue to feel that way regardless of what he does or says or what the evidence shows, IMO.

To clarify, I am not referring only to people on this thread. I am referring to many people who said "I believe him" immediately after his statement was read, before any corroborating evidence was provided.
 
Okay, then I'll say I would prefer a conversation about what the reaction would be if a famous woman shot her boyfriend through a locked door and then claimed she thought he was an intruder, eliminating the leading question about abuse. Yes, some people might wonder if she had been abused, but I doubt that would be the only popular scenario considered.

JMO
I can imagine and speculate that if the genders were reversed, the corner for the prosecution would be alot smaller than the defenses. We would say she had every right to shoot as she thought she was in danger...a few people would be speculating that she shot him in some jealous rage.

Someone commented somewhere, not on this board but can't remember where that its almost like men are not allowed to feel vulnerable or fearful. Anyone have thoughts on that statement?
 
In the meantime, the killing has highlighted South Africa's history of gun violence and high crime. And it's shown the world that many South Africans live with a palpable, almost paranoid, fear of having their homes broken into. In the past year, more than 50% of South Africans told the country's police force that they're afraid. The number of home burglaries across the country of 50 million have more than doubled. They totaled 9,063 in a 12-month period spanning 2002/2003; seven years later, it was up 18,786. And in a similar period ending in 2012, reported break-ins dipped to 16,766, according to South Africa's crime reporting body, the Institute for Security Studies.


"The paranoia about being a victim of a house robbery is understandable," said the group's small arms researcher Lauren Tracey. "Victims are relatively helpless against these attacks."
It's common to see armed guards patrolling gated, middle-class neighborhoods.

Hiring a private security firm is not the exception but the norm. Workaday people install panic buttons, closed-circuit televisions, man trap doors, boom gates and outdoor point-to-point infrared motion-sensing beams on their houses.
Also unique to South Africa: When burglars break in, they likely aren't after a flat-screen television or jewelry, experts say. They want the homeowner's guns.
That's in part because it's very hard to acquire a gun legally in South Africa, but it remains, many say, relatively easy to get a gun illegally.


To understand South Africa's gun culture, it's crucial to go back nearly two decades. In 1994, apartheid ended. The official system of racial segregation, in place since 1948, took rights away from black Africans and gave virtually all power in every aspect of life to whites.
For generations, violence born out of apartheid spawned a kind of arms race; blacks and whites fought against each other, and everyone else armed themselves, afraid to be caught in the cross fire.

The law isn't perfect. As one South African correspondent put it, guns are still very much a part of the culture. Signs at South African airports and casinos point to where consumers should drop off their weapons.
And gun ownership advocates say that is why people are still incredibly afraid of hearing someone creeping in their house at night.
There are about 2,000 guns stolen from legal gun owners in South Africa every month, according to Gun Free South Africa.
Between April 2005 and March 2011, more than 18,000 police firearms were reportedly stolen or lost. Guns have gone missing from police stations.


And there's little reason for armed burglars to think they'll be caught and punished. The rate of arrest and prosecution in the country is 7%, said former detective Rudolph Zinn, who wrote a book about home invasions and now trains South African police.
He believes there's one chief reason for that: Few South Africans trust law enforcement because in recent years, the police force has become politicized, with higher ranking officers who are politically appointed.


"There was a distrust related to our heritage," he says, referring to apartheid, "and unfortunately, over the years, we've gone back to that. I saw it often when I was a detective.
There are undoubtedly more home invasions, he said, than are officially counted.
"People don't even want to report a crime," he said, "because they don't believe anything is going to come of it."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/23/world/africa/south-africa-gun-violence/?hpt=hp_c1

More at link.
 
[/B]


Joe -- Is it purely speculation Reeva's back of her skull was crushed in?

Or is someone making this up?

Pure media rumor. This and the 'her getting shot first in the bedroom'. Botha testified she had no other wounds other than the bullet wounds. He also never mentioned (as well as anybody else) mention her being shot in the bedroom.
 
To clarify, I am not referring only to people on this thread. I am referring to many people who said "I believe him" immediately after his statement was read, before any corroborating evidence was provided.

Ok. It's just that besides his family and friends, I haven't seen such statements.

Even Reeva's dad leaves open the possibility that this was an accident.
 
From journalist Barry Bateman inside the courtroom: "Autopsy found bullet wound to right side of head. No sign of assault. “@V_Gounden: crushed skull, true or false?"

How does anyone explain Reeva's skull was crushed at the back of her head?

Why are there so many disputes about this?

OP had to know he was swinging at Reeva's head?

This should be a fast case and OP should be sent away a long time...He was winging it for a story/alibi on the fly...Way too many holes in his story

Police sources close to the investigation told the independent City Press newspaper that Steenkamp’s skull had been ‘‘ crushed’’.

‘‘ There was lots of blood on the bat,’’ one source told the newspaper.



http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx
 
I can imagine and speculate that if the genders were reversed, the corner for the prosecution would be alot smaller than the defenses. We would say she had every right to shoot as she thought she was in danger...a few people would be speculating that she shot him in some jealous rage.

Someone commented somewhere, not on this board but can't remember where that its almost like men are not allowed to feel vulnerable or fearful. Anyone have thoughts on that statement?

This is simply my opinion but I think if the roles were reversed, I still think there would be those that question the story (if the story was exactly the same) but I do also think there would be more that would be willing to believe the story, believe the fear involved would lead a woman to do as OP did.

I guess what I'm saying is there would be more on the fence as there are now if the roles were reversed.
 
[/B]


Joe -- Is it purely speculation Reeva's back of her skull was crushed in?

Or is someone making this up?

no truth to it whatsoever, she was shot, she had no other injuries
 
I can imagine and speculate that if the genders were reversed, the corner for the prosecution would be alot smaller than the defenses. We would say she had every right to shoot as she thought she was in danger...a few people would be speculating that she shot him in some jealous rage.

Someone commented somewhere, not on this board but can't remember where that its almost like men are not allowed to feel vulnerable or fearful. Anyone have thoughts on that statement?

I have thoughts on it, yes, but perhaps off-topic. My thoughts are that many males are socialized to believe they should not show fear and vulnerability, in the same way that many females are socialized to believe they should not show anger or assert their personal needs. This leads to personal and societal problems. Additionally, many males (and some females) are socialized to believe violence is an acceptable means of resolving conflicts. It's all very unfortunate. I'm pleased to say my siblings and I were raised by parents who did not socialize us in this way, but I'm sure societal expectations played a role in making us who we are nonetheless.

Moderators can delete this if it's too off-topic.

JMO
 
Night night guys, I'm done for, it's been great and I shall be back.

Got to go lock up, put on the lasers, light up the electric fencing and let the dogs have a quick roam of the perimeter, then bed!! Haha :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
2,154
Total visitors
2,311

Forum statistics

Threads
601,941
Messages
18,132,281
Members
231,189
Latest member
Scomo
Back
Top