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

Expect this at Trial:

Prosecutor: You felt you were in danger without your limbs, so you advanced away from the bedside and the person you were protecting towards danger and then opened fire once in the hall, then not knowing if you'd hit your target, or even what your target was, you advanced again and fired 3 more times getting so close to your target in the process that a casing ejected into the toilet itself?

OP: yes I felt I was in danger

Pros.: grave danger

OP: Is there any other kind

Pros.: I want the truth

OP: You can't handle the truth! .... in South Africa we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Sgt. Botha? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom to paralympians. You weep for Reeva and you curse the guns. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that without my prosthetics I can shoot first and think later, that Reeva's death, while tragic, probably saved lives, and stopped home invasions. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.

Pros.;Q. Did you shoot Reeva knowingly?

OP: I fired at an intruder.

Pros.; Did you shoot Reeva knowing it was her?

OP: You're goddamn right I did.

I just don't see how the scenario of firing through the toilet door fits with a crime of passion. This leaves the possibility of a planned murder. That doesn't ring true either because it's about the most unlikely way you could think of to pretend to shoot an intruder.

no no... wrote:

I just don't see how the scenario of firing through the toilet door fits with a crime of passion. This leaves the possibility of a planned murder. That doesn't ring true either because it's about the most unlikely way you could think of to pretend to shoot an intruder.

Agreed. At this point, I believe Oscar is telling the truth. Lots of confusion, tragic mistake.

how could you not believe that, firing through a locked door that has behind it the woman you want to beat the crap out of, not a crime of passion? it doesn't get any more crime of passionish than that. you sound awfully gullible if you are believing his preposterous story.

the other damning bit of info is where is the cell phone he used to call the police? there isn't a single good reason that it is missing.

Interesting that all of his 'uncontrollable sobbing' from yesterday seemed to have stopped today when, by all accounts, his defence team begun to get the upper hand and he thinks he's now got a chance.

His tears were all for one person, and it wasn't Reeva

Even if Pistorious account is true the fact is he deliberately pumped four rounds into the toilet room with the intent of killing whomever was in there. That right there is murder.

And his story is not credible. You have the intruder cornered in the toilet room and you don't even call out and ask who is there and what are you doing in there? You just pump four shots in the door. Does he always pump shots into the doors and walls when he 'hears' things.

Oscar is and always has been a huge fraud. Now we see he was taking testosterone.

Like any Affidavit that Pistorius submitted, his was artfully drafted by counsel and incredibly self serving. Would he withstand cross examination on the "facts" as he alleges them? Doubtful that we would ever see that (presuming there is a corrolary right against self incrimination under South African law), but then the Affidavit at trial would of course not be admissible. That's a tough way to proceed for him. At a trial, the simplest explanation is typically the ocrrect one. Pistorius' story is not simple and does not correspond with common experience.

I believe him because he has not been proven guilty. Until then, I will believe him. The detective also could not dispute any claim OP made in the affidavit.

you are living up to your screen name. do you believe OJ, clemens, bonds and lance too? none of them has been proven guilty either.

I am making meaningful comments to remind people that there is an official record now, things stated in court, that correct previous reports in press, and additionally there is a 3rd angle where some SA press is wondering why so many wrong things have been allowed out by the press -- not normally allowed in SA. In those cases the contempt charges would be against SA media.

You have to read the court reports first and foremost.

I've noticed a lot of erroneously reporting from UK outlets, and tabloid esque level things coming from SA.

Additionally, if you, or someone on the thread is going to say that they weren't in their sleeping clothes....well then provide a link, because I haven't seen it in the prosecutions evidence to date.

I.E. People are reporting shit that was rumored days ago as fact. And people are posting shit on message board all over the world making opinion based on reports of" 1. police having been there previously that evening: False. Neighbors hearing arguing hours before. False. Long distance neighbor and still not proven to be a reliable report as yet.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

The defense rep saying they are in deep trouble... Paints a picture along with the not found bullet/casing that there is a lot to be tidied up.

For now, his story, by the prosecutions own statement, seems to have not had any holes poked in it.

BUT, what we don't know is if the prosecution is holding anything back...

if you bothered to read what i wrote, you would have understood that i qualified what i wrote saying that this is just what has been reported:

except that the reports are that they weren't in sleeping clothes and it they had been arguing an hour earlier.

if you can't differentiate between that statement and affirmatively stating that they weren't in sleeping clothes, then you probably should take a break and refrain from posting on this thread in the future.

you also are wholly incorrect in believing that just because one side states something in the bail hearing it therefore must be correct. we already have seen numerous facts that each side has taken very different positions on that only one can be correct on (eg, whether he had his legs on or was stumpy).

looks like he will make bail of some kind

Now appears there are 2 different witnesses other than OP, and at least 1 says the lights were on before 2 shots were fired, not good for OP. And the defense says police were sloppy not to find shell casing in toilet, but items removed from house by OP's brother. Where is the 5th phone that was used to call emergency??

"Mr Botha told the magistrate that a second witness had heard gunfire and gone out to his balcony to see "that the lights in the house were on". He then heard a female scream before two more shots were fired.

The defence countered that the screams from the house were those of Pistorius, in anguish at what had happened.

Mr Botha said Pistorius' brother, Carl, and a lawyer had removed from the house a memory stick with the details of the athlete's offshore accounts and that both "testosterone" and an unlicensed 38mm handgun were found in the house."

the 'witnesses' have not been cross-examined of course as to any bias, confusion, etc., but still not good for OP's version

quick draw mcgraw wrote:

if you bothered to read what i wrote, you would have understood that i qualified what i wrote saying that this is just what has been reported:

except that the reports are that they weren't in sleeping clothes and it they had been arguing an hour earlier.

if you can't differentiate between that statement and affirmatively stating that they weren't in sleeping clothes, then you probably should take a break and refrain from posting on this thread in the future.

you also are wholly incorrect in believing that just because one side states something in the bail hearing it therefore must be correct. we already have seen numerous facts that each side has taken very different positions on that only one can be correct on (eg, whether he had his legs on or was stumpy).

...Post a link to where it is proven in court that they were not sleeping in sleeping clothes.

I was following the twitter feed from a reporter standing right in front of Oscar... Maybe I missed it somehow.

I suppose at some point there will be a reliable timeline versus what both sides agree on, what the press reported in error, and what both sides disagree on.

quick draw mcgraw wrote:

if you bothered to read what i wrote, you would have understood that i qualified what i wrote saying that this is just what has been reported:

except that the reports are that they weren't in sleeping clothes and it they had been arguing an hour earlier.

if you can't differentiate between that statement and affirmatively stating that they weren't in sleeping clothes, then you probably should take a break and refrain from posting on this thread in the future.

you also are wholly incorrect in believing that just because one side states something in the bail hearing it therefore must be correct. we already have seen numerous facts that each side has taken very different positions on that only one can be correct on (eg, whether he had his legs on or was stumpy).

PS, maybe the problem is your writing.

Or your reading.

I've noted that articles written by SA/UK and USA Press continue to report things not established in court, or not report things that the court has corrected.

nothing has been "proven in court" yet. each side has made statements and that's about it. you might want to learn a little bit more about how legal proceedings work before popping off with ridiculous posts like this.

i'll repeat it again, there were REPORTS (and since you don't know what that means, that means that they are unconfirmed and may in fact be wrong) that they weren't in sleeping clothes. this isn't rocket science.

nothing is wrong with either my writing or reading. i do, however, find it odd that you are questioning both of them with respect to me when you clearly have trouble processing not so subtle nuances in writing.

you further show how little you understand here by claiming that the court has "corrected" misstated facts. what really has happened is that each side has made statements and attempted to refute statements made by the other side but the court yet hasn't corrected anything. i really do think that you should take a break from posting on here until you get somewhat of a grasp as to how the legal process works. it's painful reading your blatant misunderstandings of very basic jurisprudence.

Detective Botha also acknowledged that there were no signs that Ms. Steenkamp had defended herself against an assailant, and that the police had no evidence that the couple’s relationship was anything but loving.

__

looks like the crushed skull 'fact' is not true, which helps oscar

agip wrote:

Detective Botha also acknowledged that there were no signs that Ms. Steenkamp had defended herself against an assailant, and that the police had no evidence that the couple’s relationship was anything but loving.

__

looks like the crushed skull 'fact' is not true, which helps oscar

i think that statement was referring to classic defense wounds (eg, skin under her fingernails, bruising on forearms, etc), which apparently there weren't any. however, that just means that he wasn't physically beating her up before he shot her. she just as easily could have run from him when he went to get his gun during an argument and hid in the locked bathroom stall. in that case, she wouldn't have signs that she defended herself.

i agree that if her skull had been crushed, that would have been cited by now by the prosecutors.

i don't know if the statement by botha is correct about no evidence the couple's relationship was anything but loving. hasn't it been confirmed that the cops had been to the house multiple times previously? if true, that would be significant evidence to the contrary.