Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

....i'm going to be clear with you for the last time........you're going to stop attacking posters..............

That sounds quite threatening. Perhaps it wasn't meant to.

 

[Colin de France]

I have experience of psychiatric and psychological services and I can assure you that OP was lucky enough to receive more attention than many more deserving and more serious cases in the UK.

.........not only that but the general public in the UK have no idea whatsoever of the abusive treatment the mentally ill receive in that country.......it's beyond the imagination i can tell you !

 

[lithgow1]

And what does that have to do with OP's innocence or guilt other than that the police didn't protect the scene?

I don`t get your question. You keep saying the police didn`t protect the crime scene as if that then justifies the actions of some of his family. It doesn`t. She shouldn`t have taken the handbag, no matter what her claimed motivation was. And if you only want to discuss things that have a direct bearing on OP`s guilt or innocence then why not restrict yourself to making and answering posts that relate to that question and let the rest of us discuss whatever peripheral aspects we want to.

 

[aftermath]

I agree it is best to be cynical when it comes to the media, celebrities and sensational stories. Just as the glowing reports in the days when he was a Golden boy were no doubt gilded somewhat, so too his bad behaviour may have been exaggerated. Enough evidence though IMO to suggest that he swaggered around with a`Don`t you know who I am' attitude. Well everyone certainly knows now!

I agree re the golden boy articles too. Media oversimplifies people. Enjoys building heroes up but equally revels in pulling them down.

My point about the tantrums was that many people seem happy to accept reports of his loud, laddish behaviour, shouting strops and storming off, nut then equally accept that on this night he lost his temper to the point where he deliberately followed his girlfriend to the bathroom and shot her- but did so quietly. He shouts at people, slams doors at parties, screams down the phone, knocks over chairs etc, but then on this one night when he is so enraged that he shoots someone, the only thing he is clearly heard doing is callously calling for help before he has even shot her? It doesn't make sense.

 

[GR_Turner]

I agree it is best to be cynical when it comes to the media, celebrities and sensational stories. Just as the glowing reports in the days when he was a Golden boy were no doubt gilded somewhat, so too his bad behaviour may have been exaggerated. Enough evidence though IMO to suggest that he swaggered around with a`Don`t you know who I am' attitude. Well everyone certainly knows now!

It doesn't follow that just because his image was Mr squeaky clean nice guy before this happened and that we now know that he could lose his temper, get into fights (verbal at least), got drunk, was arrogant etc that this makes him someone likely to commit a murder. If you looked at the public image of any celebrity and then looked at the reality I expect you'd very often see a different picture in the same way that a person acts differently at work and at home. So the difference in itself is meaningless imo.

What I have heard about him suggests he had a temper and an attitude sometimes but what I haven't heard is cases of him attacking previous girlfriends in any way at all. It's a big jump from nothing to murder without any reason at all imo.

 

[cottonweaver]

Rushing here but will come back to this later and reply properly
Handbag - asked 4 women. 2 already said no, explain reasons later, going to ask another in a mo

Quals, procedural standards of experts in huge "celebrated" trials - yes makes a huge difference, yes appointees considered carefully but that pool of the hot-sh** professional may be be tiny in some places.

Credentials of posters - pah! see my previoius post.

GAD - yes it's in the DSM and quals as mental illness AFAIK

OP naturally stroppy in an argument. I agree. But there's a but. As we are speculating - it's perfectly usual for the blokes to be the quieter one in the argument if he has just been rumbled and is on the back foot. ( Works for women too)

Jenna Edkins - why on earth would she turn on OP if she was still with him and potentially implicated in cause of a huge row?

TTFN

 

[aftermath]

It doesn't follow that just because his image was Mr squeaky clean nice guy before this happened and that we now know that he could lose his temper, get into fights (verbal at least), got drunk, was arrogant etc that this makes him someone likely to commit a murder. If you looked at the public image of any celebrity and then looked at the reality I expect you'd very often see a different picture in the same way that a person acts differently at work and at home. So the difference in itself is meaningless imo.

What I have heard about him suggests he had a temper and an attitude sometimes but what I haven't heard is cases of him attacking previous girlfriends in any way at all. It's a big jump from nothing to murder without any reason at all imo.

Agree with this too- he doesn't have to be a nice guy to be innocent of murder.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

It doesn't follow that just because his image was Mr squeaky clean nice guy before this happened and that we now know that he could lose his temper, get into fights (verbal at least), got drunk, was arrogant etc that this makes him someone likely to commit a murder. If you looked at the public image of any celebrity and then looked at the reality I expect you'd very often see a different picture in the same way that a person acts differently at work and at home. So the difference in itself is meaningless imo.

What I have heard about him suggests he had a temper and an attitude sometimes but what I haven't heard is cases of him attacking previous girlfriends in any way at all. It's a big jump from nothing to murder without any reason at all imo.

....but he did have previous incidents revolving around reckless behavior with guns

 

[lithgow1]

I agree re the golden boy articles too. Media oversimplifies people. Enjoys building heroes up but equally revels in pulling them down.

My point about the tantrums was that many people seem happy to accept reports of his loud, laddish behaviour, shouting strops and storming off, nut then equally accept that on this night he lost his temper to the point where he deliberately followed his girlfriend to the bathroom and shot her- but did so quietly. He shouts at people, slams doors at parties, screams down the phone, knocks over chairs etc, but then on this one night when he is so enraged that he shoots someone, the only thing he is clearly heard doing is callously calling for help before he has even shot her? It doesn't make sense.

The point about a `quiet argument` versus a screaming match is a good one. But I also think that his personality from what we saw during the trial can be as much petulant and sulky as volatile and loud. Perhaps he was in the `wrong` if the argument revolved around contact with an ex and withdrew into sulky mode, refusing to answer her questions or respond. Just a thought.

Another `do you think it strange` question for you. His whole description of that night seemed somewhat out of character for a new`ish and young couple don`t you reckon? They sounded like a middle aged pair rather than young and newly in love. Especially given her earlier tweet about what are you going to do for your loved one on Valentine`s Day.

 

[lithgow1]

It doesn't follow that just because his image was Mr squeaky clean nice guy before this happened and that we now know that he could lose his temper, get into fights (verbal at least), got drunk, was arrogant etc that this makes him someone likely to commit a murder. If you looked at the public image of any celebrity and then looked at the reality I expect you'd very often see a different picture in the same way that a person acts differently at work and at home. So the difference in itself is meaningless imo.

What I have heard about him suggests he had a temper and an attitude sometimes but what I haven't heard is cases of him attacking previous girlfriends in any way at all. It's a big jump from nothing to murder without any reason at all imo.

Where did I say that being a jerk made him likely to commit a murder? I didn`t, though the temper thing could make him more predisposed towards losing it in certain situations.

 

[Colin de France]

It doesn't follow that just because his image was Mr squeaky clean nice guy before this happened and that we now know that he could lose his temper, get into fights (verbal at least), got drunk, was arrogant etc that this makes him someone likely to commit a murder. If you looked at the public image of any celebrity and then looked at the reality I expect you'd very often see a different picture in the same way that a person acts differently at work and at home. So the difference in itself is meaningless imo.

What I have heard about him suggests he had a temper and an attitude sometimes but what I haven't heard is cases of him attacking previous girlfriends in any way at all. It's a big jump from nothing to murder without any reason at all imo.

..........he was never Mr Nice Guy before this happened, he went round shooting in restaurants, out of car roofs, killing dogs......and that's before we even get to his fidelity with women, he was never Mr Nice Guy........what no one yet has determined with precision is how exactly all this kicked off, he shot her in a moment of extreme rage but if one studies it closely you can detect an element of speed in the way it happened....it all happened very fast and i stay with my idea that Reeva was in the toilet looking at his phone and he had to react quickly to reduce the amount of information she found...he fired once, she screamed and he then fired the other three.......it was a situation an exceptional situation which got out of hand very quickly, that's what comes across to me ......

 

[Colin de France]

Yes- How strange that it was found to be missing after the state said it wouldn't reach, then showed a photo that didn't prove it wouldn't reach and after pistorius saying that it would reach...

....No you've got it wrong.....what it showed was that two fans were never on the patio.....that pistorius didn't need to go on the patio.....that one of the sockets of the extension cord was taken up by the charger ....that Pistorius had over one year to change his story from one fan to two only to find that it's not possible........

 

[Colin de France]

.........i wonder if he took Reeva downstairs because he found out his sister was coming to the appartment and he didn't want her to see the body.......to a certain degree it would shift the center of action and free up the appartment ....

 

[aftermath]

....No you've got it wrong.....what it showed was that two fans were never on the patio.....that pistorius didn't need to go on the patio.....that one of the sockets of the extension cord was taken up by the charger ....that Pistorius had over one year to change his story from one fan to two only to find that it's not possible........

No. The photos didn't show that the fans were never on the patio. They were however used to question whether the large fan could be moved inside to where pistorius said it was and whether the small fan was plugged in anywhere at all...

 

[Colin de France]

No. The photos didn't show that the fans were never on the patio. They were however used to question whether the large fan could be moved inside to where pistorius said it was and whether the small fan was plugged in anywhere at all...

...what do you mean by no...if one of the sockets was taken up by the charger and one of the fan cables behind a speaker how could two fans be plugged in on the patio ......we've already been through all this ...

 

[aftermath]

..........he was never Mr Nice Guy before this happened, he went round shooting in restaurants, out of car roofs, killing dogs......and that's before we even get to his fidelity with women, he was never Mr Nice Guy........what no one yet has determined with precision is how exactly all this kicked off, he shot her in a moment of extreme rage but if one studies it closely you can detect an element of speed in the way it happened....it all happened very fast and i stay with my idea that Reeva was in the toilet looking at his phone and he had to react quickly to reduce the amount of information she found...he fired once, she screamed and he then fired the other three.......it was a situation an exceptional situation which got out of hand very quickly, that's what comes across to me ......

What kind of information could she have found on his phone that would require assassination?!

 

[Colin de France]

What kind of information could she have found on his phone that would require assassination?!

.....jumping too fast...for me it was a chain of events....she went into the WC with the telephone......he realised.......blew his top because he knew what she was doing......and then unfolded a series of events to get her to come out of the toilet, she refused and so it escalated....it's pure speculation i know, but it's an image i've had from the start.......

 

[aftermath]

.....jumping too fast...for me it was a chain of events....she went into the WC with the telephone......he realised.......blew his top because he knew what she was doing......and then unfolded a series of events to get her to come out of the toilet, she refused and so it escalated....it's pure speculation i know, but it's an image i've had from the start.......

Wouldn't she have used the phone to call the police once it started escalating to the point where he went off to get his gun?

 

[Colin de France]

Wouldn't she have used the phone to call the police once it started escalating to the point where he went off to get his gun?

....how would she have known if she was in the toilet ?..............

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I agree re the golden boy articles too. Media oversimplifies people. Enjoys building heroes up but equally revels in pulling them down.

My point about the tantrums was that many people seem happy to accept reports of his loud, laddish behaviour, shouting strops and storming off, nut then equally accept that on this night he lost his temper to the point where he deliberately followed his girlfriend to the bathroom and shot her- but did so quietly. He shouts at people, slams doors at parties, screams down the phone, knocks over chairs etc, but then on this one night when he is so enraged that he shoots someone, the only thing he is clearly heard doing is callously calling for help before he has even shot her? It doesn't make sense.

IMO it makes sense if he stopped yelling/shouting/squalling/roaring at the second, when he knew he was going to do something irreparable violent (DV and murder) - and had the idea of the lovely intruder. Witnesses could hear and understand something; therefore he had to stop and was (different than usual) relatively quiet.
You have to admit: he happens to be clever and sophisticated.