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

Bconvey,

Nice analysis.

Ok, here's my take (Assuming he shot her in cold blood).

At first, I didn't get why he would yelled out. I mean that makes no sense to me, because if he yelled out, he'd probably hear her reply.

I guess he might include that to explain possibly why neighbors heard shouts late at night.

To me, if it comes out that there was a disturbance there earlier in the night, he's serving a long time.

I am waiting to see what the motive was to kill her, it may never come out (but possibly could)....if at all.

I think it was premeditated Murder!

Not only is a good athlete, he is very story teller.

Possible motives?

Any Ideas?

His story is pure bs. There's no way in hell he wouldn't stop and consider it could be her in the bathroom. Disabled or not you dont unload your clip into your bathroom door unless you're pretty dang sure your ladys not the shadow behind the door. I dont buy it for one second.

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

I am waiting to see what the motive was to kill her, it may never come out (but possibly could)....if at all.

I think it was premeditated Murder!

Not only is a good athlete, he is very story teller.

Possible motives?

Any Ideas?

Motive? Could be many things. Affairs pop to mind. Either by him and she freaked on him. Or her and he wasn't too happy about it. Or, this always has something to do with everything, money. Follow the money trail. Maybe she tried to blackmail him for something, steroids? Maybe she freaked when she found out he was a drug cheat and fraud. Maybe she threatened to blow the whistle. Maybe she was threatening to leave him. I could go on and on.

Interesting discussion here.

One note about the South African legal process... Like in the US, the prosecution must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's a very high standard. Any murderer with sympathetic story and a good lawyer stands a chance to prevail.

I personally think the affidavit rings false. But the prosecution is going to need more evidence of premeditation, in my opinion. I suspect they have it, but we'll see...

If it is true that the police were at the house just two hours earlier because the couple was fighting, that will be big. And if the girlfriend's body has a single wound from that bat, big problem for OP.

I was a bit surprised that OP locked himself into this story so early in the process, without having a better sense of what evidence exists out there. But maybe it's customary for South African defense lawyers to show their cards at the bail hearing. From the US perspective, seems very risky.

Not to worry.

Mr Blade Runner will soon be enjoying companionship with a different male lover every night.

The case will not be decided by a rube-filled jury, so any nonsense dreamed up by the defense had better be really good.

Criminal trials in South Africa don’t have juries. All cases are tried in front of professional magistrates or judges who weigh arguments and pronounce sentences. They also are the ones responsible for handing down sentences.

The Guardian explains the thinking: “The jury system was done away with altogether in 1969. The thinking is that judges are trained to put aside their prejudices and decide cases on the basis of the evidence before them and the law. Unlike juries, they also have to give reasons for their decisions. A real risk of substantial prejudice to the administration of justice is therefore much, much lower when there is no jury.”

I'm done with this site, its a joke, everyone is an ass, this is not a constructive, fun environment that running should have.

and the blojos are horrible for this sport, you cynical A-holes

woooooo wrote:

I'm done with this site, its a joke, everyone is an ass, this is not a constructive, fun environment that running should have.

and the blojos are horrible for this sport, you cynical A-holes

You shouldn't give up on your first day. This type of thread and communication certainly isn't the norm here.

eddie grant wrote:

Am I missing something with the paranoia and open bathroom window panic defense when the doors to your balcony are left wide open whilst you sleep, blinds/curtains open as well?

If one is terrified of intruders, who sleeps with balcony doors open, with previous knowledge of ladders nearby?

Yeah, that occurred to me too, a bit ago too. Maybe they fell asleep after sex, and he was getting up to close and lock those things. His statement was that he was getting a fan, and closing the sliding doors and blinds.

If it wasn't for articles in the past, and that tweet about being startled by his washing machine... I'd wonder. But it seems like a case can be made that he had a fear of home invasion...and I can totally see them drifting off after dinner, wine, sex, and then him waking up to secure those things...and, the only way it was unintended...is if a series of tragic things happened...

Robert, Weldon,

Give Oscar his day in court. Until then, please stop commenting on this case.

rojo wrote:

JiJoJo wrote:

I knew all the people rushing to convict Oscar were going to look like idiots when the facts came to light. The story makes sense and is entirely plausible. The prosecution is reaching with this premeditation charge.

You 'knew?'

I think you are rushing to free him just as much as they anyone might be rushing to convict.

How can anyone except for maybe Oscar or the people he called right after know for sure right now?

This is insane. Rojo gets after someone for coming down on one side of this issue, and he goes on to state, "How can anyone except for maybe Oscar or the people he called right after know for sure right now?"

At the same time, Rojo titles his thread, "Oscar P's sobbing was so good the judge stopped the proceedings...." What an incredibly biased way to title a thread. Clearly, Rojo has already convicted Pistorius in his own mind.

This raises so many questions: What makes Rojo so sure that Pistorius is guilty that he would title the thread in such a biased way? Does he know Pistorius? Does he have special insight into the case? Does he dislike Pistorius for some reason? If he dislikes him, why didn't he say anything against Pistorius long ago?

Of course Pistorius may be guilty, but how about this: Unless someone has special insight into the case or personal knowledge of someone involved in the proceedings, perhaps refrain from rushing to judgment. Let's see what's revealed by people who actually have some knowledge about what happened.

no taste in music wrote:

Yeah, that occurred to me too, a bit ago too. Maybe they fell asleep after sex, and he was getting up to close and lock those things. His statement was that he was getting a fan, and closing the sliding doors and blinds.

Why would he bring a fan home at that time of night?

Sobbing "so good"?

You're saying he is acting? Is this a serious claim or just tabloid rhetoric?

My beef comes with him yelling out (seemingly loudly) to the "intruder" to get out. Most likely Reeva would hear it. Secondly, if no reply, just shoot??? Yeah right. That's jumping the gun a bit :) He was not provoked to fire. At all. Only paranoia and "vulnerability" provoked him. That's not good enough.

Above all else, my gut tells me he's a lying.

Acting....planning for my biopic I'll star in......

It was Valentines day and they were in bed drinking some red wine and Oscar probably could not get it up for her after spending hours of trying... at 1 am the neighbours could hear yelling from Oscars house... Finally a couple of hours later at about 3am in the morning his girl friend said enough is enough!!! and left for the washroom while telling Oscar that she needs a real man that he could not satisfy her.

Oscar was probably drunk and very offended by her remarks and got into a roid rage and took the 9mm from under his bed and yelled F_uck you B_tch!!! ....and fired shots through the washroom door...

DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?????????????

Oh and when he finally realized the terrible thing he did. he grabbed the cricket bat and smashed the washroom door in and carried Reeva in her arms to the downstairs where she died....

no taste in music wrote:

say what now wrote:

They cremated Reeva Steenkamp today. So In less than 4 days, they have covered every base from an autopsy and prosecution perspective? I'm no criminal prosecutor, bu that seems to end the options to further review evidence based on new theories or defenses coming out. Why would they cremate her so quickly?

Different countries and religious have different amounts of time when they feel "it's time" to cremate/bury.

It's not like they were going to test her for poisoning in the future.

I am sure they got all the pictures and tissue samples they needed.

No, it's unusual. Or it would be in the UK anyway, from an investigation point of view. Too early, when new information is still emerging.