Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #70 *Appeal Verdict*

[aftermath]

I wouldn't want to put my name to that account knowing OP would be gunning for me.

He is a convicted murderer after all. And a convicted murderer who doesn't take kindly to betrayal.

I wouldn't want to put my name to that account as I might have come across like someone trying to cash in on a bit of sensationalism..

He hadn't been convicted of murder at the time of that story. Re the betrayal reference, do you mean when Sam Taylor went to dubai with quinton van den burgh?(think that was his name)

 

[mhiforme]

Interesting. I know I would never have removed anything even if I had assumed he was totally innocent and I also know I would support my family in this situation but never by doing anything illegal.

Do you find you always support whom you consider the underdog?

BIB this isn't a sport with favourites and underdogs where we can place bets on winners and losers.

This is a murder trial where nobody wins, neither Oscar's family or Reeva's family.

 

[mhiforme]

Pardon me for being cynical but I don’t see a self-centred egotistical individual like Pistorius building a shrine to anyone unless of course it’s to himself.

However I do see the families’ PR company coming up with the idea to paint him in a better light then conveniently releasing it to the press.

I would hazard a guess there are no photos of this shrine as it probably remains just a figment of the imagination – much like the ‘intruder’

BIB, so now you want a picture of a shrine to prove it but it's ok when elsewhere in the thread, it's acceptable that there's an unnamed woman without pictures that claims Oscar was drinking and flirting. That really shows a bias.

 

[mhiforme]

Am I right in thinking you never believe anything you read in a newspaper unless it has a photo to prove the article is true? I have come to the conclusion that you will never believe anything written about OP even if true if it doesn't fit your predetermined opinion of this IMO wreckless young man.

BIB, don't you think it goes both ways. The anti-Pistorians are ready to jump on any news that appears negative to Oscar but they are ready to dismiss anything in Oscar's favour as a plant by the family.

Case in point is an article that Lerena was interviewed in by the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iend-betrayed-just-days-convicted-murder.html

Those that feel Oscar is a murder can only address this article by saying it was a plant and fail to accept that this was written by someone that has known Oscar for a while.

I remember even the picture of Oscar with his nieces and nephews being discussed as a plant to spin positive light his way rather than just a family picture being shared over Christmas.

 

[soozieqtips]

I wouldn't want to put my name to that account as I might have come across like someone trying to cash in on a bit of sensationalism..

He hadn't been convicted of murder at the time of that story. Re the betrayal reference, do you mean when Sam Taylor went to dubai with quinton van den burgh?(think that was his name)

BIB 1 - so wait a minute. You wouldn't put your name to it in case it looked like you were cashing in... but you criticise the people who witnessed what happened for not putting their names to the accounts? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

BIB 2 - But his vicious temper was well documented, as was his penchant for confronting trouble. Not really someone you'd want to get on the bad side of, especially with his magician's skill at making guns fire without pulling the trigger.

 

[mhiforme]

In fact I have had a great deal of experience with the press. My husband is (or should I say was) an international and Olympic Sportsman and the press was part of daily life. Never once did they misreport anything about him. All interviews and appearances were very fairly reported. So we have different experiences.

With all due respect then, your husband was not a celebrity that has to face the wrath of the harsh media light day in and day out.

Here's 20 false celebrity headlines after just 5 seconds of searching. This is what true celebrities have to deal with as people try and make a name for themselves

http://www.celebuzz.com/photos/tabloid-stories-that-proved-phony/david-beckham-12/

 

[mhiforme]

Here's a prime example of how the Anti-Pistorians will take any negative media headline posted about Oscar and in turn call him a monster.

There needs to be some intellectual reasoning that needs to occur rather than the simple knee jerk reaction we tend to see.

This article just came out today and it's called "Monster mom...." From this headline, should be be calling Charlize Theron a child abuser now, yet I'm sure many people with kids would have come across instances where their child was acting out in public. The only difference is we don't get brutal headlines published about us for our actions

http://okmagazine.com/photos/monste...rt-dissects-shocking-photos/photo/1001395635/

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here's a prime example of how the Anti-Pistorians will take any negative media headline posted about Oscar and in turn call him a monster.

There needs to be some intellectual reasoning that needs to occur rather than the simple knee jerk reaction we tend to see.

This article just came out today and it's called "Monster mom...." From this headline, should be be calling Charlize Theron a child abuser now, yet I'm sure many people with kids would have come across instances where their child was acting out in public. The only difference is we don't get brutal headlines published about us for our actions

http://okmagazine.com/photos/monste...rt-dissects-shocking-photos/photo/1001395635/

Equating OK magazine with International Business Times renders your comparison worthless.

Monster is your description. Mine would be Liar.

 

[Interested Bystander]

With all due respect then, your husband was not a celebrity that has to face the wrath of the harsh media light day in and day out.

Here's 20 false celebrity headlines after just 5 seconds of searching. This is what true celebrities have to deal with as people try and make a name for themselves

http://www.celebuzz.com/photos/tabloid-stories-that-proved-phony/david-beckham-12/

You need to compare like with like to make a comparison. If you choose to read trash you will get lies.

I don't regard OP as Celebrity. Just a well known sportsman. I had never heard of him until his appalling behaviour at the London Olympics. The international 'celebrity status' he now enjoys has only been the case since he murdered RS. Like most sportsmen he is well known within his homeland for his sporting prowess but his worldwide notoriety is due to his being a murderer.

My husband has always behaved himself and is a perfect gentleman. If he had behaved like OP I am sure he would have hit the headlines.

 

[Interested Bystander]

BIB, don't you think it goes both ways. The anti-Pistorians are ready to jump on any news that appears negative to Oscar but they are ready to dismiss anything in Oscar's favour as a plant by the family.

Case in point is an article that Lerena was interviewed in by the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iend-betrayed-just-days-convicted-murder.html

Those that feel Oscar is a murder can only address this article by saying it was a plant and fail to accept that this was written by someone that has known Oscar for a while.

I remember even the picture of Oscar with his nieces and nephews being discussed as a plant to spin positive light his way rather than just a family picture being shared over Christmas.

Uncle A employed a spokesperson to deal with the press. It may have been more convincing if he had dealt with them himself. She probably had orders to keep everything as low profile as possible until such time as the Press could be useful to them. However that backfired big time Did you not notice the rash of stories soon dried up when the press grasped what was going on? Yes I am very cynical of the P family, especially those "who always win".

 

[Interested Bystander]

BIB this isn't a sport with favourites and underdogs where we can place bets on winners and losers.

This is a murder trial where nobody wins, neither Oscar's family or Reeva's family.

What a strange response to a valid question. Some people, and I know a few, will always take the side of the underdog because they want to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, IMO, OP showed his deceit on the stand and has now been handed down the correct verdict. However, there are always those who support murderers and in some cases even marry them. I thought to start with that this was some very sad accident but it became very clear to me, and more than 90 per cent of the forum, that he was a liar and a murderer.

 

[Belgarion]

Here's a prime example of how the Anti-Pistorians will take any negative media headline posted about Oscar and in turn call him a monster.

There needs to be some intellectual reasoning that needs to occur rather than the simple knee jerk reaction we tend to see.

This article just came out today and it's called "Monster mom...." From this headline, should be be calling Charlize Theron a child abuser now, yet I'm sure many people with kids would have come across instances where their child was acting out in public. The only difference is we don't get brutal headlines published about us for our actions

http://okmagazine.com/photos/monste...rt-dissects-shocking-photos/photo/1001395635/

When Pistorians (I assume you are as such because you label others as anti-Pistorian) have to resort to ‘OK magazine’ to make a point then I think we can safely say they are losing the argument.

If as a reader of OK magazine you wish to defend a convicted murderer who lied continuously throughout his trial (accepted by the trial judge) please feel free but don’t insult the intelligence of others by supporting your rose coloured view of such an odious person by desperately resorting to extracts from a trash periodical that pays large sums of money to contributors. Not exactly the route to an unbiased opinion.

 

[Belgarion]

I don't know whether they specialise in sensational celebrity stories if that's what you're asking.

If you get one of the "unnamed sources" into court then I'd be interested in what they had to say under oath.

It's interesting, for example, that so many rejected Mr EVDM evidence as it was only from his wife's lips yet media stories somehow magically have greater credibility.

Well as you seem to place your faith in what people say under oath then I assume you believe everything Pistorius said under oath otherwise your faith in others being truthful in similar circumstances is somewhat misplaced.

 

[Belgarion]

I am reminded by some posters on here of the undaunted Heather Malcherczyk, a Pistorian par excellence whose fawning on her hero knows no bounds.

Her trademark long-winded posts pop up at regular intervals all over the internet.

Just this morning she offers us her latest opinionated article on a site entitled the ‘The News Hub’‎

https://www.the-newshub.com/international/oscar-pistorius571

It is evident she views Pistorius as some god like figure who can do no wrong and Nel as a demon from the underworld sent to harass her hero

Level headed persons who venture to read her latest outpourings are reminded that green sick buckets are available for hire

 

[Trotterly]

Hold on a minute. Are you actually crowing about the fact that you reached the same decision as Masipa?

Was that the same Masipa whose decision was overturned by the SCA because she screwed up on DE and ignoring circumstantial evidence.

So are you saying you got it as wrong as her yet feel the need to be pleased about it?

Another ‘you couldn’t make it up’ moment methinks

You know very well that this has always been about him knowing it was Reeva. The DE is a balance and I do not think it is as black and white as you and others claim.

The SCA never got the chance with the "argument" because the PT knew the screams were not safe.

The screams were the facts and Reeva screaming was the inference but neither the PT nor the SCA would go there. They could have tried on the same grounds but they did not. Why do you think that was?

 

[soozieqtips]

And yet you believe Pistorius. Now that is a surprise, given what you say here.

Even when his numerous lies have been neatly listed, the supporters (who always deny they're supporters) constantly try and justify the lies (unsuccessfully). And if someone dares to speak negatively about the murderer, then it's all "unsubstantiated" or from '"bitter and jealous" people

 

[Trotterly]

When Pistorians (I assume you are as such because you label others as anti-Pistorian) have to resort to ‘OK magazine’ to make a point then I think we can safely say they are losing the argument.

If as a reader of OK magazine you wish to defend a convicted murderer who lied continuously throughout his trial (accepted by the trial judge) please feel free but don’t insult the intelligence of others by supporting your rose coloured view of such an odious person by desperately resorting to extracts from a trash periodical that pays large sums of money to contributors. Not exactly the route to an unbiased opinion.

BIB Nope. Links please?

You seem to think an HC judge with 17 years experience or whatever it was would say an accused lied throughout and then come to the verdict she did?

You think the SCA would not comment on this but instead praise her work?

 

[Sherbert]

You know very well that this has always been about him knowing it was Reeva. The DE is a balance and I do not think it is as black and white as you and others claim.

The SCA never got the chance with the "argument" because the PT knew the screams were not safe.

The screams were the facts and Reeva screaming was the inference but neither the PT nor the SCA would go there. They could have tried on the same grounds but they did not. Why do you think that was?

It was an inference of fact.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I don't know whether they specialise in sensational celebrity stories if that's what you're asking.

If you get one of the "unnamed sources" into court then I'd be interested in what they had to say under oath.

It's interesting, for example, that so many rejected Mr EVDM evidence as it was only from his wife's lips yet media stories somehow magically have greater credibility.

Still hanging onto this BIB above?? You do recall, of course, that Mr. VDM reportedly said that he heard Oscar "crying" (not screaming) and this was after the last shot sounds. Right?

 

[Marfa Lights]

BIB Nope. Links please?

You seem to think an HC judge with 17 years experience or whatever it was would say an accused lied throughout and then come to the verdict she did?

You think the SCA would not comment on this but instead praise her work?

I think this was a professional courtesy to soften the humiliation of overturning her verdict and having to re-work the logic behind her legal reasoning on DE and completing the test for PPD.