Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Deleted member 102539]

This is all rather unfair and is rather jumping to Nel's tune imo. When you think about something that upsets you do you always know why something in particular upsets you and is it always the same? Nel commentated on OP's evidence throughout the cross in a way clearly intended to influence the judge to reject OP's evidence (his only hope of a conviction really) so of course Nel would make the accusation - it was his job. The other alternative is that OP was just upset.

http://www.ibtimes.com/oscar-pistorius-broken-man-contemplating-suicide-report-1117736

However, the show also reveals that when Pistorius was initially arrested for the Valentine’s Day killing, he displayed bravado, vaingloriously telling police: “I’ll survive. I always win.” In response, a policeman admonished him, “You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.”

Who is able to think and word this a few hours after the creepy death (murder) of his girlfriend, the same man we should believe to be just a little upset when Nel is asking questions?

 

[Trotterly]

1. Oscar claimed he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder and shot her by mistake.
2. However Michelle Burger and her husband now know what they heard was his girlfriend screaming bloody murder followed by four shots from Oscar's gun.
3. Logic dictates Oscar also would have heard his girlfriend screaming (and should have recognized her voice) and not fired four bullets in the direction of his girlfriend's screams.
4. No need to jump to conclusions.

By 9:00 the next morning it was already being reported that there was no intruder and Oscar was being charged with murder.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ar-Pistorius-shoots-girlfriend-dead-live.html

:banghead:

I realise this is frustrating. I'm trying to make the same subtle point about bias that Roux did and you are responding in the exact same way as Burger. With hindsight and believing that the murder is obvious it makes it difficult to see but believe me when I say that you cannot make a logical leap to murder.

Remember I'm only talking about what extra info Burger got from her husband. Whether that information was true or not is irrelevant.

1. Oscar claimed he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder and shot her by mistake.

No. The evidence was that OP "thought there was an intruder" and "shot his girlfriend". Not that he made a mistake or that there was not an intruder. Burger was given many chances to say that this was not what she was told but never once disputed it. It's easy to make the leap to believing that it was a mistake and that there was no intruder if you don't think about it logically and that's the point - she fell into an easy trap. I'm not saying it's wrong, I did it too when she first gave her evidence.

2. However Michelle Burger and her husband now know what they heard was his girlfriend screaming bloody murder followed by four shots from Oscar's gun.

Correct. But remember I'm talking only about Burger knowing the extra information I quoted in 1. You say "now know" but she already knew she heard a woman screaming and four shots which she had already attributed to a home invasion.

3. Logic dictates Oscar also would have heard his girlfriend screaming (and should have recognized her voice) and not fired four bullets in the direction of his girlfriend's screams.

He would have heard Reeva screaming but remember Johnson did not tell Burger there was not actually an intruder. It does not matter if there was/wasn't or it had been reported or not or who other than Burger knew what. The point is that at that time Burger knew only that OP thought there was an intruder. If she had believed OP at that point then the circumstances under which OP "shot his girlfriend" could much different to those of murder. Not just OP's version but any number of others once there is a real intruder in there with them. For example an intruder could have advanced on Reeva with gun raised ready to kill her when OP grabbed his gun and shot at the intruder but missed the intruder and killed Reeva. That would also fit the bloody murder screaming and shots.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The back of that house must have been like a cuckoo clock shop lol.

:giggle::silly:

 

[aftermath]

http://www.ibtimes.com/oscar-pistorius-broken-man-contemplating-suicide-report-1117736

However, the show also reveals that when Pistorius was initially arrested for the Valentine’s Day killing, he displayed bravado, vaingloriously telling police: “I’ll survive. I always win.” In response, a policeman admonished him, “You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.”

Who is able to think and word this a few hours after the creepy death (murder) of his girlfriend, the same man we should believe to be just a little upset when Nel is asking questions?

This verbal exchange was not verified or even mentioned in court. Could that be because there is no proof it even happened?
Even if he had have said it, what might the context have been? Eg What might have been said just beforehand to lead to such a response?
The adverb 'vaingloriously' is emotionally leading and the article doesn't even say who reported that Pistorius ever said such a thing.

 

[Trotterly]

I think it's totally clear and easy: Nobody who is fit in one's brain can imagine, that a neighbour is chasing his girlfriend through the home for 1h, threatens her verbally while probably handling several weapons (cricket/baseball bat, air rifle, gun), makes his girlfriend scream for her life, cries himself out of rage and anger and shoots minimum 4 bullets inside a luxury home. First I would think of home invasion because any other thought initially prohibits, if I have no insider knowledge about the neighbour's usually bad behavior and his character.

You may well have not meant this but please be careful about comments like this to other posters.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I am "new" here, yes- but not "new" to following the case. As far as I have read/seen, there was no report of angry loud male voice prior to the shooting. If the window to the bathroom was open, wouldn't any male aggressive shouting prior to firing the gun have been heard by the same people hearing the apparently female screams? And wouldn't a loud angry verbal outburst be truer to type (based on what has been widely reported about his temper), than a quiet firing? So no- no clear build up of male hostility/anger/aggression/ immediately prior to the shooting has been established. -unless you mean the "get the f* out of my house' outburst?

It's possible OP at this time already had murderous thoughts and also already had concocted, that an intruder story would help him to cover up. An intruder isn't yelling intimate insults; therefore OP didn't.

 

[Trotterly]

http://www.ibtimes.com/oscar-pistorius-broken-man-contemplating-suicide-report-1117736

However, the show also reveals that when Pistorius was initially arrested for the Valentine’s Day killing, he displayed bravado, vaingloriously telling police: “I’ll survive. I always win.” In response, a policeman admonished him, “You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.”

Who is able to think and word this a few hours after the creepy death (murder) of his girlfriend, the same man we should believe to be just a little upset when Nel is asking questions?

It seems like a very arrogant comment under the circumstances. He has been portrayed as entitled and above the law and there are certainly many such people who appear not to be humbled in any way by what crimes they have done. But that tells us nothing about what he actually did that night.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Unless Dixon is a liar or Pistorius thought to break the toilet light, it seems pretty certain the toilet light wasn't working. That's not to say some light couldn't have got into the toilet cubicle though.- it depends when in the whole sequence of events the Stipps actually noticed the lighting.

So are you suggesting either that Pistorius would have leant over Steenkamp's body to close the window before touching her, or that he moved her, washed his hands, then went back into the toilet to close the window? There is no evidence to support either of these options...

He didn't even had to wash is hands. I think he used one of the towels (that were bloodied lying around later) to touch several "fake things". Who can prove?

 

[Colin de France]

It's possible OP at this time already had murderous thoughts and also already had concocted, that an intruder story would help him to cover up. An intruder isn't yelling intimate insults; therefore OP didn't.

....isn't there a member of the family who is an expert in this matter ......?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

This verbal exchange was not verified or even mentioned in court. Could that be because there is no proof it even happened?
Even if he had have said it, what might the context have been? Eg What might have been said just beforehand to lead to such a response?
The adverb 'vaingloriously' is emotionally leading and the article doesn't even say who reported that Pistorius ever said such a thing.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/06/oscar-pistorius-murder
There was no forced entry. The only place there could have been entrance was the open bathroom window, and we did everything we could to see if anyone went through it, and it was impossible. So I thought it was an open-and-closed case. He shot her—that’s it. I was convinced that it was murder, and I told my colonel, ‘You already read him his rights, so you have to arrest him.’ ”

I think Botha was the one; he wasn't asked as a witness.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-suicidal-reveals-best-1753776

Among the revelations is how Pistorius, 26, showed bravado after he was arrested over the Valentine’s Day shooting and told police: “I’ll survive. I always win.”

It was his response to a senior officer who had warned him: “You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.”

 

[Deleted member 102539]

....isn't there a member of the family who is an expert in this matter ......?

:thinking: I don't know what you are thinking of .....?

 

[Colin de France]

It seems like a very arrogant comment under the circumstances. He has been portrayed as entitled and above the law and there are certainly many such people who appear not to be humbled in any way by what crimes they have done. But that tells us nothing about what he actually did that night.

Nobody in their right mind could believe that such a statement didn't have a bearing on what had just previously happened....."I'll survive, i always win" in his mind he was already in court, he was already calculating the pro's and con's...... if he was truly innocent, if he had really thought an intruder was in the toilet, would he had said that...no....simply because the evidence would of backed him and it wouldn't of been a case of survival but calm explanation.....but we know that wasn't the case, that's why we had all the theatricals and the tears in court because there was no evidence to back him up because he shot her on purpose.......

 

[aftermath]

It's possible OP at this time already had murderous thoughts and also already had concocted, that an intruder story would help him to cover up. An intruder isn't yelling intimate insults; therefore OP didn't.

If he already had the peace of mind not to put his prostheses on, and to plan not to shout anything except 'help' right before he killed her- wouldn't he have also- in all likelihood- had the peace of mind not to shoot through a door, knowing that not seeing a direct threat would instantly render the killing unlawful and make a trial virtually inevitable? (And also making a murder more tricky since the out-of-sight intended victim might not be standing against the door, but might instead be screaming out of an open window, or crouching away from the door?)

 

[Colin de France]

:thinking: I don't know what you are thinking of .....?

You don't allow PM....

 

[Trotterly]

Nobody in their right mind could believe that such a statement didn't have a bearing on what had just previously happened....."I'll survive, i always win" in his mind he was already in court, he was already calculating the pro's and con's...... if he was truly innocent, if he had really thought an intruder was in the toilet, would he had said that...no....simply because the evidence would of backed him and it wouldn't of been a case of survival but calm explanation.....but we know that wasn't the case, that's why we had all the theatricals and the tears in court because there was no evidence to back him up because he shot her on purpose.......

He would have been aware of the stupid thing he had done and how it looked. You might behave differently. You might think "no worries the court will believe it was an unlikely accident, my concern is just for Reeva" That would make you a better person than OP.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

If he already had the peace of mind not to put his prostheses on, and to plan not to shout anything except 'help' right before he killed her- wouldn't he have also- in all likelihood- had the peace of mind not to shoot through a door, knowing that not seeing a direct threat would instantly render the killing unlawful and make a trial virtually inevitable? (And also making a murder more tricky since the out-of-sight intended victim might not be standing against the door, but might instead be screaming out of an open window, or crouching away from the door?)

Maybe I can't understand what you wanted to say; I had to read 3 times because of my translation problems.

bbm= Yes, expert said so but I'm not conviced.

When he thought of silencing Reeva now in this second and avoiding her testimony to this how-ever-silencing afterwards, he maybe came to shoot her like an intruder and certainly he thought, that the opposite of this intruder story would not be to prove, whether Reeva stood facing the door or not. IMO he was convinced everybody would believe the story because of his status and the circumstances in SA and a trial never would happen.

 

[Colin de France]

He would have been aware of the stupid thing he had done and how it looked. You might behave differently. You might think "no worries the court will believe it was an unlikely accident, my concern is just for Reeva" That would make you a better person than OP.

No Trotterly i'm afraid you are on a losing battle why people like you need to defend an obvious murderer who was already thinking of his own survival after having shot "the love of his life" is beyond me......"I survive, i always win"...doesn't that say something to you.....that's not the person blubbing and puking up in court....that came from a calculator......Masipa was had.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

He would have been aware of the stupid thing he had done and how it looked. You might behave differently. You might think "no worries the court will believe it was an unlikely accident, my concern is just for Reeva" That would make you a better person than OP.

???:thinking:

 

[Trotterly]

http://fox59.com/2013/02/14/woman-found-shot-to-death-in-home-of-south-african-blade-runner/

Early in the morning 14.2.:

There did not appear to be signs of forced entry at the home, Beukes said.

She also said there had been “previous incidents” at the home — “allegations of a domestic nature.”

Several South African media outlets reported that the woman was mistaken for an intruder.

Beukes said she was aware of those reports, but they did not come from the police force.

Beukes said that police were alerted to the shooting by neighbors and that residents “heard things earlier.”

However, Beukes said, “This is a very quiet area and this is a secure estate.”

But Burger knew nothing of this. The first news she got was from her husband and it was just a single sentence that OP thought there was an intruder and that he shot Reeva. From this alone she immediately concludes OP was lying. When she then saw all the news herself these details became part of her version. This was the reason Masipa accepted that Burger's testimony was tainted.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

You don't allow PM....

I need a new email address. I do understand.

Btw that I didn't know:
To substantiate its view, Pistorius described in the process his experiences with the crime in South Africa. His father had been kidnapped twice, his brother managed to escape during a kidnapping attempt. Pistorius himself was also pursuing several times in their own words by car. Also several burglaries were already fallen victim to him and his family. "I think everybody in South Africa will eventually confronted with crime," said the 27-year-old, trying thus his, from a European perspective, to explain disproportionate reaction to the alleged burglars.

Google translation
http://www.purestars.de/artikel/oscar-pistorius-erste-aussage-im-mordprozess_a1195/1