General Discussion Thread #2

[Inobu]

Can it proven today that his story is false?

Cityslick you refuse to except anything other than his story as being true.

You are blanketing the story when in fact his story is a series of events. These events needs to substantiated. If one event falls so does the rest of the story.

So, here you go


According to TMZ on Feb. 20, the witness claims she heard shots and when she went to her balcony the lights at Pistorius’ home were on.

The witness was even able to give more information. According to the witness, there was “non-stop talking like fighting” going on at the Pistorius house between 2 and 3 a.m. This fighting happened shortly before hearing the shots fired. The witness also claims there were gunshots with the lights on and a female screaming before more gunshots were fired.

So with that is it plausible that he is lying or do you think the neighbor is lying?

Do you feel that the neighbor could not only hear nor see the events? When you are trying to sleep and people argue it wakes you up. The pieces seem to be falling off OP picture.

Inobu

 

[natsound]

But he meant to shoot whoever was in the bathroom. So how is that an accident?

I just can't see how anyone would rationally shoot 4x into a bathroom door before finding out who, or what, is in there making a little bit of noise. It's nuts, isn't it? :waitasec:

 

[natsound]

I do have a little trouble with the neighbor saying she heard shots, then screaming, then shots. Did the 4 shots come 2 at a time? Doesn't seem plausible. Were more than 4 shots fired, and if so, why didn't attorneys allude to this?

 

[Inobu]

According to TMZ on Feb. 20, the witness claims she heard shots and when she went to her balcony the lights at Pistorius’ home were on.

The witness was even able to give more information. According to the witness, there was “non-stop talking like fighting” going on at the Pistorius house between 2 and 3 a.m. This fighting happened shortly before hearing the shots fired. The witness also claims there were gunshots with the lights on and a female screaming before more gunshots were fired.

Applying logic to derive the step to the event.

Reeva was in side the toilet room the door locked. The door validates it with the bullet holes. The witness said they heard a scream before the shots.

One could discredit the witness because the scream does not make sense.

But it does. If he verbally threaten to shoot her and she hears the gun what is she going to do?

shot scream, shots , light out. So what the witness poses is plausible. The affidavit starts to crumble as do all lies.

The neighbor's comment is falling inline with the evidence. Remember the 1 casing in the bedroom and the 3 in the bedroom. How did the casing end up in a sequence like the witness heard?


Inobu

Am I 100% sure no, is it getting there yes.

 

[jjenny]

I do have a little trouble with the neighbor saying she heard shots, then screaming, then shots. Did the 4 shots come 2 at a time? Doesn't seem plausible. Were more than 4 shots fired, and if so, why didn't attorneys allude to this?

Like somebody else suggested, maybe the neighbor heard shots, then door being hit with a bat (which the neighbor confused for shots).

 

[Snoopster]

I don't know what happened.

I believe, based on what I've heard (including what the media has dished out) and on general intuition, that OP is guilty of intentionally killing Reeva. I readily admit that this is just an opinion on my part, with imperfect information.

Having said that I would like to applaud Carol (and others) who are looking for reasons to believe that OP didn't kill Reeva intentionally, or those who are willing to entertain the idea and play devil's advocate. For the majority to jump to a conclusion and to bully the opposing views away in just not acceptable, or helpful.

I believe that everyone deserves their day in court; their chance at a fair trial. So, I have to say that this bothered me:

Look at the media! I have never seen a case where the media is allowed to be so close to an accused in court. I find it offensive....examining every little detail of the accused's decorum. That's just not right. Let's give the guy a chance for a fair trial, and let the truth come out.

In the end this is about finding out the TRUTH, not about presuming that the accused is guilty. A young woman was killed and her family is mourning. Let's find out what REALLY happened. Keep it coming Carol. I'm happy to spar with you.




(I still believe that OP is guilty of intentional murder, but that is simply my opinion, and doesn't count for anything since I don't know the facts.)

 

[Inobu]

I do have a little trouble with the neighbor saying she heard shots, then screaming, then shots. Did the 4 shots come 2 at a time? Doesn't seem plausible. Were more than 4 shots fired, and if so, why didn't attorneys allude to this?

This is where the IO should ask the witness to recite what they heard. Tell the witness to sound it out. As the witness mimics the sound the IO counts.

Often people can remember and recite the sound more so than give you a number.

It could easily be that OP picked up the other shell casing and the investigating team found more than 4 bullets.

Inobu

 

[Inobu]

Snoopster's

I understand what you are saying but

Reeva planned to join a “Black Friday” protest by wearing black in honor of a 17-year-old girl who was gang-raped and killed in South Africa two weeks ago but she did not make it. Why? She did not have a chance.

Inobu

 

[Snoopster]

Snoopster's

I understand what you are saying but

Reeva planned to join a “Black Friday” protest by wearing black in honor of a 17-year-old girl who was gang-raped and killed in South Africa two weeks ago but she did not make it. Why? She did not have a chance.

Inobu

My heart bleeds for Reeva and her family. What if that was a child of mine??

Does that mean that we should rush to judgement and send the vultures in?

I'm not sure what your point is. (I confuse easily :crazy


All JMO and no disrespect meant to anyone! (except perhaps the media)

(Again, I do think it is likely that OP intentionally killed Reeva, but I do not know that for a fact, and, if I may be so bold, nor do you.)

 

[Depor23]

Like the prosecution argued, what burglar comes to use your toilet?

Maybe it was like this:

Deuce Bigalow- European Gigolo Ausschnitt ( german ) - YouTube

 

[Xavier]

OP's story does not add up at all, lots of holes in his alibi

So between 2 am and 3am neighbors heard screaming, loud shouting, then not much later gunshots

OK, if it's an intruder, what intruder would be hanging around listening to this argument?

And how can OP and Reeva be arguing one minute, then shortly later, OP's firing shots, supposedly at an unknown intruder

This is a crime of passion, pure and simple

And the bloody cricket bat that crushed the back of poor Reeva's skull?

OP did'nt recognize her when he was swinging the bat?

C'mon...this is one sad story

 

[Inobu]

My heart bleeds for Reeva and her family. What if that was a child of mine??

Does that mean that we should rush to judgement and send the vultures in?

I'm not sure what your point is. (I confuse easily :crazy


All JMO and no disrespect meant to anyone! (except perhaps the media)

(Again, I do think it is likely that OP intentionally killed Reeva, but I do not know that for a fact, and, if I may be so bold, nor do you.)

Under other circumstances I can see your point but this case based on the way the affidavit is written it does not hold to much truth.

It think we both know the trial is a formality.

Inobu

 

[Sunday]

OP's story does not add up at all, lots of holes in his alibi

So between 2 am and 3am neighbors heard screaming, loud shouting, then not much later gunshots

OK, if it's an intruder, what intruder would be hanging around listening to this argument?

And how can OP and Reeva be arguing one minute, then shortly later, OP's firing shots, supposedly at an unknown intruder

This is a crime of passion, pure and simple

And the bloody cricket bat that crushed the back of poor Reeva's skull?

OP did'nt recognize her when he was swinging the bat?

C'mon...this is one sad story

Obviously you didn't pay attention to the court proceedings and only know the erroneous details reported in the media. Skull bashed in? The autopsy showed no signs of defensive wounds or injuries. The neighbor who heard arguing was deemed unreliable because they lived too far away to have heard OP and RS arguing. If they heard anything it was clearly someone else.

 

[Estelle]

Two witnesses with no idea how reliable they are. One was over 1000 feet away how far was the other? If they had been arguing for an hour and someone 1000 feet away heard them, how didn't half the houses all around them not hear nothing? He didn't live in a rural area.

The prosecution has not revealed all its evidence yet waiting for trial. I still think that these residents would have called the police at the time or at least security. If you heard shots, wouldn't you call security or police? I bet there are many statements that we have not been told about yet.

 

[Estelle]

What, you think people can't argue without getting physical?

All the bail hearing was about was did he have an intention to kill? That was answered by Nel as his saying that when he picked up the gun, he intended to use it to kill someone.

From what I could see the problem with the prosecution's case was that it was listed on the sheets by Botha as murder to kill Reeva - NOT premeditated murder of intruder or Reeva for that matter. Roux made a point of that.

It appears that the state is going after premeditated murder of Reeva but they have to list it on the sheets.

Would it have been better for them to have listed it as premeditated murder of intruder?

There might be a legal technicality in this that the State has to work on now when the forensic evidence comes back.

 

[Estelle]

So he loses to the guy in the Olympics. He starts claiming that the other guy didn't win fairly because the blades were too long.
And that after arguing that blades didn't give himself an unfair advantage in order to participate in regular Olympics and races.
I don't think he has this angelic personality some people seem to think he has.

IMO he is a narcissistic sociopath who thinks the world revolves around him. If he does not get his own way, then he spits the dummy. He has been spoiled by family due to his disability and before this case, the whole world adored him due to his achievements. Reeva felt this way when she first met him but on that night, she could have seen his other side. He is a true Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide. This is what narcissists are like. It's all about him. He expects adoration, attention, admiration and if he does not get it, he suffers from narcissistic injury.

 

[Estelle]

Not many arguments go immediately from shouting for an hour to chasing with a gun. Where/what was the catalyst for that?

IMO it will be jealousy. it appears that the very handsome rugby player, Francois Hougaard, sent her a message/s on Facebook that night which was found on her iPad. He is now keeping a low profile but went to the funeral. IMO he will be a witness in the trial.

 

[Estelle]

There were reports of one ex-who said..OP is not who everyone thinks he is.She was going to tell her story,but her lawyer told her not to.

Witnesses like her and Francois Hougaard will appear at the trial IMO.

 

[Estelle]

From his behavior during Paralympics, I am going to guess he has the sense of entitlement and a big head. The other guy won fair and squire.

True - this is a sign of his narcissism. IMo he also felt entitled to exclusivity with Reeva meaning that he did not approve of her having any male friends on Facebook.

 

[Estelle]

I think it is a huge mistake to compare cases to this one in lieu of actually providing evidence in this case. It is what has bugged me from the start.

What actually happened in THIS CASE.

Where is the evidence in this case.

Anything else is irrelevant.

You seem to be treating this bail application as if it were the trial. If that is what you are seeking, then wait for then - June 4. The Prosecution does not reveal all its evidence until the trial. It is called legal strategy.