Theory Thread - What happened at Pistorius' house on the night of Feb. 13, 2013?

[Cherwell]

I would not be too sure about that. He is facing four charges not one. He pleaded Not Guilty to all four. Roux in the HOA may have said that he was 'responsible for the gun going off', but his plea has not officially changed. (Unless I missed something.) This will reflect badly.

His original bail application has proved to be misleading. Don't forget, the restrictions around that bail application were subsequently appealed & lifted. Judge Masipa cannot simply extend his original bail, it would not cover his status as a convicted Murderer.

If convicted, I believe he will be incarcerated immediately, pending the lodging of an appeal & bail hearings being heard. And here is something else, I think I am in a minority of one that says he will not be granted bail until his appeal is heard. Whilst I respect the people on talk shows & commentators who seem to think he will still be a free man, they are not as 'Expert' as people think. They make mistakes and have got many things wrong in this case.

Judge Masipa will not.

If, as I hope, he gets a custodial sentence on the multiple gun offences, there'll be no reason for him to get bail even then.

 

[jay-jay]

I'm sorry, but have you got any evidence at all to suggest that the judge will be swayed by how "powerful" his family is?

.. perhaps if you'd been following the discussion on here (which you clearly haven't, not if you still believe OP's big fat lie), then you would not need to be asking that question.

 

[jay-jay]

I agree with all of this - I hope everyone here will be just as respectful of Judge Masipa if she doesn't give the verdict everyone here wants. This has been a fair trial, and she will be a fair judge.

Well let's just see how it goes down with you if/when she delivers a guilty verdict .. I bet you a pound to a penny you won't believe she has arrived at the right decision.

 

[geevee]

I would agree…

Considering that OP has been charged with 3 gun related offenses…

Considering OP's plea and testimony to said offenses…

Considering that if OP is found guilty on all 3 said offenses…

… there will be a compounding effect which will be an aggravating factor at sentencing.

Do you have any idea why he wasn't also charged with shooting the dog he hit? From what has been posted about it, the dog owner saw him do it and could testify to it, wouldn't that be another (at the least) reckless weapons charge?

 

[geevee]

How do I go about doing it?

Read this:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...n-Process-for-Professional-or-Insider-Posters

 

[soozieqtips]

Do you have any idea why he wasn't also charged with shooting the dog he hit? From what has been posted about it, the dog owner saw him do it and could testify to it, wouldn't that be another (at the least) reckless weapons charge?

I think the dog was beyond help after OP ran it over, so no doubt he would have said that shooting it was the kindest thing to do. The fact he didn't bother to acknowledge the owner just highlights how callous OP is.

 

[vansleuths]

I agree. He was granted bail when he was merely accused of committing the crime, and was considered innocent until proven guilty. Once convicted, even if he appeals, the presumption of innocence is gone.

On top of that, I think a big determining factor will be if Masipa deems him to be a flight risk. The fact that OP sold his main immovable asset during trial will hurt his chances of his bail application being approved. Another problem is that his professional career that was based locally is also now nonexistent. He has absolutely nothing to offer on his bail application to persuade milady that he is not a flight risk if let out on bail.

MOO

BIB

Perhaps OP will bring in the army of doctors again to explain that OP has GAD and that he doesn't have a flight response because of his disability and therefore must stay and fight....i say this facetiously btw

 

[AJ_DS]

Do you have any idea why he wasn't also charged with shooting the dog he hit? From what has been posted about it, the dog owner saw him do it and could testify to it, wouldn't that be another (at the least) reckless weapons charge?

I'm not sure… do you know when this occurred ?

 

[geevee]

I think the dog was beyond help after OP ran it over, so no doubt he would have said that shooting it was the kindest thing to do. The fact he didn't bother to acknowledge the owner just highlights how callous OP is.

Although maybe the more humane thing to do, isn't there laws against it? It just seems rather strange to me that he'd be charged with shooting out of a sunroof but not charged with shooting a dog that he hit with his car.

 

[vansleuths]

Do you have any idea why he wasn't also charged with shooting the dog he hit? From what has been posted about it, the dog owner saw him do it and could testify to it, wouldn't that be another (at the least) reckless weapons charge?

Interesting point. Just did a quick search on Google and came across this link:

Hillsdale man faces felony charges for shooting and killing a dog ( http://wqad.com/2014/07/24/hillsdale-man-faces-felony-charges-for-shooting-and-killing-a-dog/ ) where the person was charged with reckless discharge of his firearm.

Mind you, OP's situation is different, the dog was mortally wounded, but you'd think that was still a reckless discharge of a firearm in a public place. Also, what about the potential ricochet on the street, the same thing OP was so worried about that caused him not to fire a warning shot in his bathroom on the night of the shooting.

 

[geevee]

I'm not sure… do you know when this occurred ?

No, I only learned of it from reading here. Do you, or know of an msm link mentioning it? I didn't see the initial post about it but presumed a link was included to back up that it did occur.

 

[Exchange973]

No, I only learned of it from reading here. Do you, or know of an msm link mentioning it? I didn't see the initial post about it but presumed a link was included to back up that it did occur.

Its mentioned here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/24/oscar-pistorius-end-of-rainbow

 

[vansleuths]

No, I only learned of it from reading here. Do you, or know of an msm link mentioning it? I didn't see the initial post about it but presumed a link was included to back up that it did occur.

The New York Times reported this incident "Other reporters sent to profile Pistorius returned with disturbing stories: he was driving 150 mph while texting; after accidentally running over a dog and watching its distraught owner approach the scene, Pistorius took out his gun, shot the dog in the head, and drove away;"

http://nypost.com/2014/07/13/which-pistorius-will-the-judge-believe-in-blade-runner-trial/

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Oscar Pistorius’ lawyers have compared the athlete to an abused woman who has been punched too many times.

During his closing argument today, defence advocate Barry Roux said the effect of Pistorius having no legs and no ability to escape was similar to the “slow burn” of a woman leading up to the shooting of an abusive spouse.

“Ultimately, when that woman picks up that firearm we can use the common words ‘I’ve had enough’.

I’m not shooting you because you’ve just assaulted me. I would never have shot you because of one punch of a fist in my face, but if you’ve done it 60, 70 times that [fills] the cup to the brim,” said Roux.

Pistorius is on trial for shooting dead girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day last year.

Judge Thokozile Masipa said she understood how a slow burn could apply to an abused woman, but wanted to know how it applied to Pistorius.

Roux replied: “You’re a little boy without legs, you experience daily that disability and the effect of this, you experience daily that you cannot run away.

You know: ‘I cannot run away, I cannot run away I don’t have a flight response’.”

Roux pointed out that he was not saying Pistorius suffered “slow burn” abuse but “the word was for the first time used in relation to abuse”.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/pistorius-lawyers-little-boy-without-legs-like-abused-woman/

“Little boy”???!!! The SOB is 27 years old. A “little boy” did not shoot four Black Talons into a terrified, trapped woman!

What a SHAMELESS, despicable ploy by defense to gain the sympathy of the court! Roux knows very well Masipa’s anti-violence against women reputation and harsh judicial history against offenders and he brazenly exploited it to the max.

REEVA was murdered in domestic violence yet somehow OP - ever the toxic, “innocent” narcissist - is the victim!

Twisted OP really is a gutless, putrid wonder.

This was the same "little boy" who had his legs knocked off during a rugby game and kept on running to make the score.

 

[soozieqtips]

Although maybe the more humane thing to do, isn't there laws against it? It just seems rather strange to me that he'd be charged with shooting out of a sunroof but not charged with shooting a dog that he hit with his car.

I suppose he would have argued that the dog ran out in front of him and he couldn't avoid it, and that when he realised he'd run it over, he 'kindly' put it out of its misery, which is not a totally implausible thing to believe, were it not for the fact he didn't have the decency to even acknowledge the poor owner of the dog he'd just killed. OP being a dog owner himself, you'd have thought he'd show a bit of empathy for the owner, but he didn't, not a shred. But that doesn't surprise me at all knowing what we now know about him.

 

[geevee]

Its mentioned here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/24/oscar-pistorius-end-of-rainbow

Thanks very much; from the link:

Oscar was quiet and self-contained. And then, apropos of nothing, he told a story. He was driving on the outskirts of a black township, he said, when a dog ran under his wheels. In his rear-view mirror, he watched as it dragged itself off the road by its front legs, its hind legs useless to it now. Its back was clearly broken. He stopped and got out of his car to find that the dog's owner had come out on to the street, shouting, cursing, gesticulating. What to do? Oscar grabbed his gun, shot the dog through the back of the head and drove off.
---

I find it very confusing that he wasn't charged with anything for this.

 

[vansleuths]

BIB .. well, yes .. and that will be the main reason why I won't be watching on the actual day itself, because I cannot bear to see his smug, evil little face if/when a 'not guilty' verdict gets delivered .. which, with his family being as powerful as it appears to be, I simply cannot see any other scenario, I'm afraid. If he is found guilty, then equally I will not be cheering, I will just be relieved to hear that justice has been served .. and I'm not quite so concerned about the appeal because I do think that if Masipa is actually going to deliver a guilty verdict, then she will have made damned sure there are no grounds for appeal.

BIB

Jay-Jay, did the closing arguments move you this much or did you come to this realization as the trial concluded? I seem to recall we had a conversation during the trial proceedings on this topic where I was saying that family money and power could play a role in the outcome of this trial either through bribes or a very effective defence team.

Having watched all of the testimony now, I honestly can't say which way Judge Masipa will rule. I can see the quiet frail judge carrying a big stick and coming down very hard on OP with either a murder or premeditated murder verdict, but I can also see her saying there is reasonable doubt about the true events of that night and CH is the best charge.

I really hope I'm wrong, but my feelings are that CH will be the verdict. If it is CH, she will give him jail time, but this will be appealed and new judges won't have the benefit of watching witnesses, they'll only hear the PT and the DT lawyer argue points from the thousands of pages worth of trial transcript. It's at this point that any jail time given for CH could potentially be overturned.

MOO

 

[Mr Fossil]

Update to my post #722.

Fast Airplane mode on the iPhone via Control Centre wasn't introduced until iOS 7 in September 2013. The slide up menu to access Control Centre can also be done without entering your passcode (if you have one).

To toggle Airplane mode prior to this (e.g. Feb 2013) requires the user to access Settings (usually on the home screen), where it is immediately available at the top. Still very fast, but not quite as fast. Apple introduced Control Centre because users were asking for faster access to Airplane mode (amongst other things) e.g. many users were doing what I suspect OP may have been doing. It's so much faster than switching the phone off if you don't want people to contact you (or the phone to buzz/light up if you put it on silent).

 

[jimmy73]

How can I be held responsible for that thread being suspended. My replies were on topic and polite. I might have been challenging assumptions of OP's guilt, but only by engaging with the facts. If that "riled" you up, then that is nothing to do with my posts. I have no desire for threads to be suspended.

I think very few on here assumed Pistorius' guilt, although many may be expecting a guilty verdict for the murder charge. Many on here have concluded he is guilty because of the 4 witnesses who heard terrified female screams plus a mans screams/shouts.

As you're in a question answering mood, do you think all four witnesses were mistaken and didn't actually hear Steenkamp screaming before she was shot?

 

[foxbluff]

Thanks very much; from the link:

Oscar was quiet and self-contained. And then, apropos of nothing, he told a story. He was driving on the outskirts of a black township, he said, when a dog ran under his wheels. In his rear-view mirror, he watched as it dragged itself off the road by its front legs, its hind legs useless to it now. Its back was clearly broken. He stopped and got out of his car to find that the dog's owner had come out on to the street, shouting, cursing, gesticulating. What to do? Oscar grabbed his gun, shot the dog through the back of the head and drove off.
---

I find it very confusing that he wasn't charged with anything for this.

BBM - My guess, geevee, would be that it was up to the dog's owner to press charges and he didn't. And, even if the owner had wanted to press charges, he didn't necessarily know the identity of the shooter in order to do so. Imho