Wow: Oscar P's sobbing was so good the judge stopped the proceedings: "My compassion as a human being does not allow me to

quick draw mcgraw wrote:

please direct me to the section in the article you cited that says that your twitter feed is following the court room proceedings "word-for-word." i'll save you the time and tell you that the twitter feed merely is a secondary source that various reporters were tweeting to. so, yes, if you have to get secondary reports real time, then that's your best source. however, that hardly is "word-for-word" reporting of the proceedings and hardly is "unbiased" as you ranted earlier. i know these concepts likely are flying over your head but please attempt to learn what they mean.

A week defense.

Point by point, and as much word for word as can be conveyed by legit reporters.

Point by point.

Question by question.

Answer by answer.

Word for word. (truncated)

You avoid the obvious: BEST SOURCE FOR POINT BY POINT, BLOW BY BLOW REPORTAGE OF THE Q AND A AND PROCEEDINGS BY THE MAGISTRATE.

READ ASSWIPE:

agip wrote:

no taste in music wrote:

Wisely stated. Agree.

__

well fine but sometimes it is the details that can tear apart an alibi.

Exactly why it is wisely stated.

And overwhelmingly whenever a woman is killed and her lover/husband is in the area, let alone behind the gun, it is almost always a crime of passion.

I would say in the USA, slam dunk, he's guilty by our juries.

I would say, in RSA, without their crime rate, common gun ownership by whites, previous articles of his safety concerns...in the least he was a home invasion paranoid...now, how much of that paranoia was part of his culture, or his families culture (evidently he was holding onto some .38 ammo for his dad...).

It's just a tragedy.

If he is guilty...good-bye. And I wish he'd just confess.

He does seem so grief stricken and in shock that it is possible that it is just a paranoid gun nut personal safety tragedy of massive proportions.

He'd only be dating this woman 4 months, if he was in love with her, thinking to marry her, and his version is actually true...man, what a thing to bear. If he's a temper nut case, then better he's locked away.

The whole thing is just sad beyond belief.

At this point it seems to me more like a gun nut fck up beyond belief...and a horrible tragedy.

The poor girls family will not be able to go outside for a year without seeing a tabloid poster or some such...how can they move on with their lives...

which part of "word-for-word" do you not understand? word-for-word is the transcript. tweets are simply secondary sources, which are no different than cnn.com or espn.com or any other source.

for your own edification, tweets are NOT "truncated" versions word-for-word reporting. they are merely secondary shorthand missives. you clearly do not understand that.

also, you are look even more foolish claiming that all of the reporters on the twitter feed are "legit" (whatever that means). do you think cnn's reporters are not "legit." i'll ask again, are you 12 years old? i don't know a single adult who uses words such as "totally" and "legit" in writing when he/she wants people to take him/herself seriously. your complete lack of understanding regarding the court proceedings this week further points to someone who either is very young or very clueless or both.

the "break-in paranoid" picture doesn't exactly hold up when he also claims to have knowingly gone to bed with the window open and ladders lying nearby. it's implausible that someone so paranoid about break-ins would knowingly go to bed with the window open and a ladder nearby but then suddenly decide after being woken up in the middle of the night that someone must have climbed in the window with the ladders. what is much more plausible is that he forgot that there were ladders lying around and never had an epiphany about them at 3am.

marty mcfeester wrote:

I think this is where the locked bedroom door comes into play. He said "I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps." I'm wondering now if in anger he refused to let her leave and locked the bedroom door.

no taste in music wrote:

If she had time to run to the bathroom, lock her self in, settle down, and empty her bladder...she was relaxed...not in fear.

She had time to run downstairs and out of the house.

I took it to mean that he had locked his bedroom door before they went to bed, and that if he turned to leave he would have time on his stumps to get to the door without risking the intruder coming out, and the two of them being in danger.

There's a lot of weird elements to this.

A guy who lives with stumps all his life, maybe had time where he feared not being able to put his prosthetics on in case of sudden danger. We don't know how mobile or wobbly he is without his "legs on."

So...she went to the bathroom, peed, while he was bringing in the fan, maybe she opened the window, or dropped something, startled him, he really didn't hear her go to the bath room, thought she was in bed, he had moved the gun to the side of the bed where he was sleeping that night, went in low to get it, and then told her in the dark to call the police, and then yelled at intruders to get "out of my house..."

Now imagine if you are a woman at your boyfriends and have just taken a pee...and hear him yell in urgency "GET OUT OF MY HOUSE" (In the context of being in SA culturally with plenty of home invasion/burglary stories), you might lock the door and hide in the privy.

If his story is true...what a horror.

I am thinking now that the police officers quotes about if he had just shot from the bathroom door he would have missed the toilet...has something to do with the extreme angle from the bathroom door to the toilet door...

Now imagine if you are a woman at your boyfriends and have just taken a pee...and hear him yell in urgency "GET OUT OF MY HOUSE" (In the context of being in SA culturally with plenty of home invasion/burglary stories), you might lock the door and hide in the privy.

__

excellent point

quick draw mcgraw wrote:

which part of "word-for-word" do you not understand? word-for-word is the transcript. tweets are simply secondary sources, which are no different than cnn.com or espn.com or any other source.

for your own edification, tweets are NOT "truncated" versions word-for-word reporting. they are merely secondary shorthand missives. you clearly do not understand that.

also, you are look even more foolish claiming that all of the reporters on the twitter feed are "legit" (whatever that means). do you think cnn's reporters are not "legit." i'll ask again, are you 12 years old? i don't know a single adult who uses words such as "totally" and "legit" in writing when he/she wants people to take him/herself seriously. your complete lack of understanding regarding the court proceedings this week further points to someone who either is very young or very clueless or both.

You need to get your head out of your sphincter and get out of your hatred towards young people.

"Word for word" is also an expression.

I didn't say COURT TRANSCRIPT you daft kunt.

The point is you will not find in any other place a more accurate +REAL TIME REPORTAGE OF THE HEARING+.

You want to avoid the concept of accredited media in the courtroom reporting on the Question and Answer of the proceedings point by point for some pissing match, then you are a fukking nut case.

It was a close to word for word as you were going to get until official transcripts are released.

So, again, just because you've been shown up, go fukk yourself you big old baby.

MOVE ON.

The most amazing thing for a person used to bail hearings in the US is the amount of factual account being presented.

Questioning the accused's story: By instinct, being confined to the quarters of the locked bedroom area (which includes the toilet, bathroom and balcony), would one not assure of themselves that their loved ones (in the same confined quarters) are safe and secure from the possibility of flailing bullets before discharging a weapon into a blindly obstructed target behind the toilet door? Would it not be more reasonable, that without the assuredness of the loved one's whereabouts, then before blindly discharging the weapon into the door, one would instead keep their weapon trained on the toilet door while waiting for a backup response from their loved one (presumably in the are behind them), and wait for the door to open, revealing any intruder (or the protruding gunbarrel of the intruder), before discharging one's weapon into the door? If the argument is the accused had a gross negligent breakdown away from the more plausible response that I've presented, then other facts outside the accused's affidavit (witness testimony, bullet trajectory, timeline, evidence) bare further credence to either side's case.

quick draw mcgraw wrote:

which part of "word-for-word" do you not understand? word-for-word is the transcript. tweets are simply secondary sources, which are no different than cnn.com or espn.com or any other source.

for your own edification, tweets are NOT "truncated" versions word-for-word reporting. they are merely secondary shorthand missives. you clearly do not understand that.

also, you are look even more foolish claiming that all of the reporters on the twitter feed are "legit" (whatever that means). do you think cnn's reporters are not "legit." i'll ask again, are you 12 years old? i don't know a single adult who uses words such as "totally" and "legit" in writing when he/she wants people to take him/herself seriously. your complete lack of understanding regarding the court proceedings this week further points to someone who either is very young or very clueless or both.

Additionally, you rustybutted old fukk, you didn't even take a look at the journalists reporting did you???

"Retweets of the journalists inside the Pretoria Magistrates Court."

If you can't pay attention old man, go get your cataracts removed, and get some hearing aids.

Here's some more legit reporting for your distracted unfocused old hateful ass:

"word-for-word" has a very specific meaning that you clearly do not understand. the twitter feed has NOTHING to do with word-for-word reporting of the OP case even though you claimed it does. i am sorry that you think otherwise.

who cares about "real time reporting" other than some clueless kid? do you think knee-jerk reactions from random reporters as they shoot them off on twitter is a factually better way to learn what transpired than reading either the actual transcript or the articles written later in the day after the same reporters had time to digest everything they witnessed and weren't tweeting mumbo jumbo missives?

i know you didn't say court transcript because you think that the tweets are a word-for-word transmission of the proceedings! who needs the actual transcript when you have word-for-word tweets in your warped world?

quick draw mcgraw wrote:

the "break-in paranoid" picture doesn't exactly hold up when he also claims to have knowingly gone to bed with the window open and ladders lying nearby. it's implausible that someone so paranoid about break-ins would knowingly go to bed with the window open and a ladder nearby but then suddenly decide after being woken up in the middle of the night that someone must have climbed in the window with the ladders. what is much more plausible is that he forgot that there were ladders lying around and never had an epiphany about them at 3am.

God you're an idiot.

Ever fall asleep with a window open unintentionally?

For all you know that's what happened. He forgot to close it, which was why he got up to close it. Maybe he was cuddling with her, fell asleep, rolled over, slept awhile and then woke up and went "oh sht, better bring in the fan and close the sliding doors."

He may well be guilty. In most cases like this, he IS guilty.

But people do incongruous stuff all the time.

Ask any cop.

It's the one time you leave your coat on the bar that it is stolen with your keys in it.

It's the one time you decide to just not alarm your car that it is stolen.

It's the one time you decide to leave the car running and just dash back in the house and grab something, that the car is stolen.

I've heard a ton of these stories from people.

Humans, make mistakes and break their habits all the time.

If he is innocent, he had an awfully pretty woman to distract him from his regular routine.

From Sherlock Holmes to tons of real life cases, sometimes there are odd and innocent and tragic answers to things.

just looking at the affidavit wrote:

Questioning the accused's story: By instinct, being confined to the quarters of the locked bedroom area (which includes the toilet, bathroom and balcony), would one not assure of themselves that their loved ones (in the same confined quarters) are safe and secure from the possibility of flailing bullets before discharging a weapon into a blindly obstructed target behind the toilet door?

The less charitable interpretation is that Pistorius sub-consciously wanted to be faced with an intruder that he could use his guns on. When he thought he had one, he was so excited that he didn't stop to think that he could be mistaken.

agip wrote:

Now imagine if you are a woman at your boyfriends and have just taken a pee...and hear him yell in urgency "GET OUT OF MY HOUSE" (In the context of being in SA culturally with plenty of home invasion/burglary stories), you might lock the door and hide in the privy.

__

excellent point

One of my best friends is from South Africa, I've heard so many stories. His brother (half) is a billionaire. And he told me that they have massive-massive security, and that it is very dangerous there. 60 minutes reported on it ten years or more ago. Women don't have to stop at 4 way stops at night for fear of car jacking, as long as it is safe, they can glide right through. And, well, men do the same now too, according to my fiend.

Brian Wave wrote:

The most amazing thing for a person used to bail hearings in the US is the amount of factual account being presented.

???

I'm not calling him guilty or dumb before I know more, but you are consistently overlooking facts.

- Locking the toilet: completely normal

- Woken by him going out on the balcony: completely normal

- Pitch dark room, sheets could make it look like there were someone in the bed. Remember, pitch dark.

- Checking the bed: He was a paranoid nut, if thats the weakest part then it seems you have concluded because you want him to be guilty

- You have yet to string together a series of inconsistencies which are abnormal

What you describe is not a "less charitable" interpretation, but rather sheer reckless stupidity in desiring to eliminate a possible, unconfirmed, burglar without first making sure of the whereabouts of your loved one int the same confined quarters.

He killed her and will be in jail for a long time

I think the evidence at this point is far weaker than most are presuming. If I had to guess I'd say he shot her after a fight. But on evidence that we know (vs. speculative) I'd be hard pressed to push that to beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are several pieces of speculative evidence that people keep bringing up as fact to support their case...

- why didn't he check the bed to see if she was there?

- why didn't he stand outside the bathroom and wait till the cops came?

- why didn't he say something to her first to see if she was there?

That's not really good for the prosecution, neither is attacking his defense. In trial he won't need to prove his defense beyond a shadow of a doubt. The prosecution will need to prove premeditated murder beyond a shadow of a doubt. Based on what we know I'd say that's a tough job for the prosecution. Unless the ballistics really are in their favor (as they're claiming) and there's actually credible witnesses that testify about fighting. That would strengthen the case, but even that as of now is mostly speculative because we don't know the truth value.

I'd say my opinion is that he's guilty of murder, but I'm not confident in that at all right now.