That really annoyed me - all women of childbearing age, hardly a minor sub group then.
I miss the rolleyes smiley.
Don't you guys think it was just a mistake? I haven't read all the posts yet (so many, wow) but the Guardian's David Smith, I read him on twitter, and he said pre-menopausal (maybe that is his and his wife's age) - I think it was just the journos and twitterers' mistake, and she meant premenstrual, no? Premenopausal is a distinct age and it's like seven years before menopause. That age Reeva was not .... (maybe this doc and it was a Freudian slip?)
DS heads are exploding en masse. The view from 30,000 feet is like what one would have seen if looking down at a supposedly unsinkable ship heading toward that infamous iceberg. The State's case is going down like the Titanic. I knew it already after I saw Oscar's testimony and heard the assessor's question.
It's not a matter of evaluating evidence to find out the truth. Most of you don't want the truth. It's not a matter of finding out if he's guilty. You don't want him to be not guilty. It's a visceral repulsion for Pistorius that is as obvious to me as your gaga googoo love affair with Nel. It's hard to fathom with the evidence.
The prosecution elects to use witnesses that are 3 blocks away instead of those right next door on both sides. Even though these witnesses can't even agree what they heard in the same house. Riiight.
They conjure up that there was an argument but have no clue what it was about, where it started, when it started or what started it. Reeva could use the remote any time she wanted to disarm the alarm if she needed to and go to the kitchen which, no matter what totally invalidates the gastric emptying hoopla of Saayman period.
Oscar tells his neighbor that Reeva was his fiance but he wants to kill her 5 hours after she texts that she's going to be sleeping with him. Riiiight. And boy I know you hated to hear anybody confirm that he did love her. Because of course as we all know, you never love your fiance. This is the next thing I'm sure I'll be hearing.
I am blatantly saying that I don't believe there was a snowball's chance that he wanted to kill Reeva. I don't think there was any more malice aforethought for Oscar killing Reeva than there was for George Zimmerman killing Travon Martin. In fact I think Oscar would prefer it was him behind that door rather than Reeva being the one that was shot. Another thing I openly want to say as clearly as I can---I think Nel is a sleazy prosecutor and I can't stand him.
It would be nice to hear refreshing honesty from a lot more of you that are doing contortions in here pretending that you're just interpreting the evidence--which always just happens to coincide with Oscars guilty--. Just say what YOU are really doing too. Which is fabricating the most far fetched subterfuges you can come up with and working yourself into a lather to spin the exculpatory evidence to try to make it fit the State's case. Some of the lengths you will go to are just bizarre.
I'm confident there could be a notarized affidavit from one of the paramedics swearing under penalty of perjury that Reeva whispered to him just before she died "Oscar didn't mean to kill me" and you would say he was lying or that Oscar paid him. It was actually posted in here that theStanders were paid off. Really?
I am routinely starting to find it predictably amusing. I could write many of your posts for you.
I portend that your spinning skills should be ready for working overtime if you think Oscar knew Reeva was in that toilet. Because I'm afraid it's only going to worse if you're one of the Nel groupies on the Pistorius Titanic with Nel.
Now just a blinkin minute. Who are you talking to?
I have no problem with you having a different view from mine, and I'm sure most posters here don't. I do have a problem with your outrageous generalisation, even if it IS true that many of us drool over Nel!
I started out posting on here just after OP's cross examination - I said then that I believed he knew it was Reeva behind the door because of the inconsistencies in his story about what he did when, what he screamed/shouted when, and his inability to answer squarely.
Since then I've been wavering a bit, and I now have plenty of doubts and unanswered questions.
I do still firmly believe OP is an overprivileged man with tendency to anger and access to deadly weapons, and that leads me to conclude that his actions on that night could have included a red mist moment. Whether that moment could count as intent, I will leave to someone with more knowledgeabilityness.
His possession of that type of bullet loaded and ready to fire in his home leads me to conclude that he considered the lives of "intruders" to be dispensable at his discretion (and according to him, he shot one that could have been a child) which in turn leads me to believe he is a murdering bastard. I'm just as entitled as you to my interpretation of his character and while none of us are participants in this trial we can all indulge ourselves in armchair judging.
Please cease and desist from sweeping everyone who fancies Nel into the same sick bucket. You may find it distasteful but seriously, you don't have to look. There must be lots of threads where no-one fancies Nel, surely?
And if that is too much to ask, maybe you could specify who "you" is so that "you" can respond to you personally?
Some of them do have the ability but pretend they don't, in furtherance of the aforementioned entertainment they derive. Same phenomenon as the loony anti-McCann sites.
How seriously unpleasant that remark is. Comparing those who think OP is most probably guilty to people who hound the McCanns.
Don't you guys think it was just a mistake? I haven't read all the posts yet (so many, wow) but the Guardian's David Smith, I read him on twitter, and he said pre-menopausal (maybe that is his and his wife's age) - I think it was just the journos and twitterers' mistake, and she meant premenstrual, no? Premenopausal is a distinct age and it's like seven years before menopause. That age Reeva was not .... (maybe this doc and it was a Freudian slip?)
She said 'pre menopausal', and when Nel suggested this may be a large group (all menstruating females) she talked about the elderly and children being large groups that she treated.
It was wilfully obtuse. Pre menopausal women are a large group, it doesn't matter that other groups she treats may also be large. Young and healthy girls and women ARE a large group.
She didn't mean 'perimenopausal' either - that's around ten years before true menopause, Reeva doesn't fall into that category.
I think it was some barely significant statistical thing, that she brought up to help show that Reeva had 'more' of a chance of having some outlier digestive issue.
I don't know about "justifiable"...but if he had turned out to be correct and bagged a burglar, I wouldn't be damning him and I don't believe the majority of the public would either. You have to bear in mind that the attitude of "oh he shouldn't have shot even if he did believe it was a burglar" comes after the dreadful reality that he messed up (at best of course, at worst it was intentional pre-med murder but that's another avenue of discussion). Had he successfully killed an armed intruder who could have exited the bathroom at any time and posed a more imminent threat, I firmly believe the reaction would be much more on his side than it currently is.
Just read the previous few pages to put your comment into perspective....sadly I think you might have a point...In the UK...we would hear all the arguments about an Englishman and castle....obviously the law does't see it that way though....Nevertheless once the case had come to court and the actual evidence was heard I suspect the majority would acknowledge that firing blindly into a tiny toilet cubicle irrespective of who you thought was behind the door was both reckless and illegal......but you are right I suspect OP would have more public sympathy if your scenario were the case.
Edit....but at the end of the day that's not what happened.
I'm curious about Nel's claim that the 200cc of food in Reeva's stomach is a very large meal. In the Meredith Kercher case she had 500cc of food in her stomach at least three hours after she ate. Is 200cc really as large a meal as he seems to be suggesting? Doesn't that mean Meredith Kercher would have to have eaten 5 litres of food...?
Geelong, I've been following the Kercher case, too - and I think those girls had a pretty big supper (watching a DVD). They had pizza and crumble - that's pretty hefty - veg & chicken strips pales by comparison .... , and apparently Meredith ate some cheese when she got home (poor thing, RIP) - Knox, another psychotic freak.
Oh that's a shame, have you tried cleaning out the filter and putting in fresh salt & rinse aid? If no joy maybe it won't cost much to get fixed ((hugs))
I don't know about "justifiable"...but if he had turned out to be correct and bagged a burglar, I wouldn't be damning him and I don't believe the majority of the public would either. You have to bear in mind that the attitude of "oh he shouldn't have shot even if he did believe it was a burglar" comes after the dreadful reality that he messed up (at best of course, at worst it was intentional pre-med murder but that's another avenue of discussion). Had he successfully killed an armed intruder who could have exited the bathroom at any time and posed a more imminent threat, I firmly believe the reaction would be much more on his side than it currently is.
That's a good point Tony. I've alluded to that before now and wondered what people would think if there HAD been an intuder. Let's face it, statistically speaking in SA, the intruder would more than likely have been a young, black, male of well below average income. To me that's the elephant in the room. A successful prominent young white male kills a successful prominent young white female. You've got to admit, it has more media appeal than the former scenario.
Surely you can't deny the amount of people on here openly and gleefully treating the trial as pure entertainment?
No, I think the majority of people are fully appreciative of the tragedy - and I do include OP in that tragedy, since if he is truly sorry that he killed Reeva, his life is pretty much over too.
It is a curious thing, and I have had my moments of guilt about finding the trial and discussions about it so fascinating.
I'm not revelling in the macabre, nor will I celebrate OP's downfall.
I can't help being lighthearted in discussions sometimes, but I hope not in seriously bad taste. Most here are similar, or I'd bugger off to another forum.
Surely you can't deny the amount of people on here openly and gleefully treating the trial as pure entertainment?
There is nothing wrong, in itself, in being 'entertained' by this trial.
It is fascinating, it is real life drama, and most of us love a mystery and court dramas can be exciting.
I don't think anyone thinks of it as 'pure' entertainment. I would think ALL of us are acutely aware that a blameless woman was killed in a frightening and horrible way.
I don't know what the point of the whole set of remarks was, except to try and scrabble some 'moral high ground'.
Where there is none.
We are all 'interested' in this - and contributing - obviously even those who 'protest too much', enjoy it.
That's a good point Tony. I've alluded to that before now and wondered what people would think if there HAD been an intuder. Let's face it, statistically speaking in SA, the intruder would more than likely have been a young, black, male of well below average income. To me that's the elephant in the room. A successful prominent young white male kills a successful prominent young white female. You've got to admit, it has more media appeal than the former scenario.
That's true without a doubt, but it's no less morally reprehensible to slaughter a burglar than a model.
Oh that's a shame, have you tried cleaning out the filter and putting in fresh salt & rinse aid? If no joy maybe it won't cost much to get fixed ((hugs))
Sorry to go off topic everyone.
it's just a gonna
There's more chance of Frank testifying than the darn thing working again
it's that bad
I HATE washing up>:(
No, I think the majority of people are fully appreciative of the tragedy - and I do include OP in that tragedy, since if he is truly sorry that he killed Reeva, his life is pretty much over too.
It is a curious thing, and I have had my moments of guilt about finding the trial and discussions about it so fascinating.
I'm not revelling in the macabre, nor will I celebrate OP's downfall.
I can't help being lighthearted in discussions sometimes, but I hope not in seriously bad taste. Most here are similar, or I'd bugger off to another forum.
I haven't been following this case as closely as some, but I get the gist of it, and think I can see the wood for the trees. I've read a lot of what's been said here, and I've read updates on the trial on twitter and blogs. But, some of the 'evidence' regarding OP's direct intent to kill Reeva has me completely baffled and doesn't seem to make sense for either the defence case or the prosecution case. There's so much muddying of the waters, I don't think on the evidence produced so far that OP can be found guilty of intending to kill Reeva, only guilty of intending to kill someone. I think the murder charge will definitely stick.
When the trial is being televised, wouldn't it be great to have a split screen with m'lady in one part of it so we could see when she's taking notes and work out what she thinks is relevant and what isn't. If I were here I'd probably doodle on my notepad, during testimony from the screamer, just to make sure no one could fathom what I thought was important.
The charge is that he intended to kill a person, to wit: Reeva Steenkamp.
That's true without a doubt, but it's no less morally reprehensible to slaughter a burglar than a model.
I don't think it matters essentially that people are interested in the 'rich, famous and beautiful' - twas ever so.
It's only WRONG, IF someone like OP got away with killing a black intruder without even going to court.
The 'black intruder' is the elephant in the room though - the idea that OP can use to excuse his behaviour, and that others would 'go along with it all, to the extent of giving him no sentence whatsoever.
I think it's a strong probability that this is being 'used' by OP as a way to escape any punishment.
Comments
Don't you guys think it was just a mistake? I haven't read all the posts yet (so many, wow) but the Guardian's David Smith, I read him on twitter, and he said pre-menopausal (maybe that is his and his wife's age) - I think it was just the journos and twitterers' mistake, and she meant premenstrual, no? Premenopausal is a distinct age and it's like seven years before menopause. That age Reeva was not .... (maybe this doc and it was a Freudian slip?)
Now just a blinkin minute. Who are you talking to?
I have no problem with you having a different view from mine, and I'm sure most posters here don't. I do have a problem with your outrageous generalisation, even if it IS true that many of us drool over Nel!
I started out posting on here just after OP's cross examination - I said then that I believed he knew it was Reeva behind the door because of the inconsistencies in his story about what he did when, what he screamed/shouted when, and his inability to answer squarely.
Since then I've been wavering a bit, and I now have plenty of doubts and unanswered questions.
I do still firmly believe OP is an overprivileged man with tendency to anger and access to deadly weapons, and that leads me to conclude that his actions on that night could have included a red mist moment. Whether that moment could count as intent, I will leave to someone with more knowledgeabilityness.
His possession of that type of bullet loaded and ready to fire in his home leads me to conclude that he considered the lives of "intruders" to be dispensable at his discretion (and according to him, he shot one that could have been a child) which in turn leads me to believe he is a murdering bastard. I'm just as entitled as you to my interpretation of his character and while none of us are participants in this trial we can all indulge ourselves in armchair judging.
Please cease and desist from sweeping everyone who fancies Nel into the same sick bucket. You may find it distasteful but seriously, you don't have to look. There must be lots of threads where no-one fancies Nel, surely?
And if that is too much to ask, maybe you could specify who "you" is so that "you" can respond to you personally?
How seriously unpleasant that remark is. Comparing those who think OP is most probably guilty to people who hound the McCanns.
I wish I could actually be surprised.
She said 'pre menopausal', and when Nel suggested this may be a large group (all menstruating females) she talked about the elderly and children being large groups that she treated.
It was wilfully obtuse. Pre menopausal women are a large group, it doesn't matter that other groups she treats may also be large. Young and healthy girls and women ARE a large group.
She didn't mean 'perimenopausal' either - that's around ten years before true menopause, Reeva doesn't fall into that category.
I think it was some barely significant statistical thing, that she brought up to help show that Reeva had 'more' of a chance of having some outlier digestive issue.
Oh I'll let it lie, I get the gist, and it's not the first time.;-)
Just read the previous few pages to put your comment into perspective....sadly I think you might have a point...In the UK...we would hear all the arguments about an Englishman and castle....obviously the law does't see it that way though....Nevertheless once the case had come to court and the actual evidence was heard I suspect the majority would acknowledge that firing blindly into a tiny toilet cubicle irrespective of who you thought was behind the door was both reckless and illegal......but you are right I suspect OP would have more public sympathy if your scenario were the case.
Edit....but at the end of the day that's not what happened.
Geelong, I've been following the Kercher case, too - and I think those girls had a pretty big supper (watching a DVD). They had pizza and crumble - that's pretty hefty - veg & chicken strips pales by comparison .... , and apparently Meredith ate some cheese when she got home (poor thing, RIP) - Knox, another psychotic freak.
Oh that's a shame, have you tried cleaning out the filter and putting in fresh salt & rinse aid? If no joy maybe it won't cost much to get fixed ((hugs))
Sorry to go off topic everyone.
Frank only hears his alarm clock, set at 03.18.
They think they can predict the future, so I was going for a fortune teller vibe...and looks like I failed miserably.
That's a good point Tony. I've alluded to that before now and wondered what people would think if there HAD been an intuder. Let's face it, statistically speaking in SA, the intruder would more than likely have been a young, black, male of well below average income. To me that's the elephant in the room. A successful prominent young white male kills a successful prominent young white female. You've got to admit, it has more media appeal than the former scenario.
Perhaps he does
No, I think the majority of people are fully appreciative of the tragedy - and I do include OP in that tragedy, since if he is truly sorry that he killed Reeva, his life is pretty much over too.
It is a curious thing, and I have had my moments of guilt about finding the trial and discussions about it so fascinating.
I'm not revelling in the macabre, nor will I celebrate OP's downfall.
I can't help being lighthearted in discussions sometimes, but I hope not in seriously bad taste. Most here are similar, or I'd bugger off to another forum.
There is nothing wrong, in itself, in being 'entertained' by this trial.
It is fascinating, it is real life drama, and most of us love a mystery and court dramas can be exciting.
I don't think anyone thinks of it as 'pure' entertainment. I would think ALL of us are acutely aware that a blameless woman was killed in a frightening and horrible way.
I don't know what the point of the whole set of remarks was, except to try and scrabble some 'moral high ground'.
Where there is none.
We are all 'interested' in this - and contributing - obviously even those who 'protest too much', enjoy it.
That's true without a doubt, but it's no less morally reprehensible to slaughter a burglar than a model.
There's more chance of Frank testifying than the darn thing working again
it's that bad
I HATE washing up>:(
Such a good post. Kudos.
The charge is that he intended to kill a person, to wit: Reeva Steenkamp.
I don't think it matters essentially that people are interested in the 'rich, famous and beautiful' - twas ever so.
It's only WRONG, IF someone like OP got away with killing a black intruder without even going to court.
The 'black intruder' is the elephant in the room though - the idea that OP can use to excuse his behaviour, and that others would 'go along with it all, to the extent of giving him no sentence whatsoever.
I think it's a strong probability that this is being 'used' by OP as a way to escape any punishment.