Oscar Pistorius Bail Hearing Begins

1273274275276277279»

Comments

  • CojonesCojones Posts: 220
    Forum Member
    1fab wrote: »
    Is it so expertly crafted, though, considering that most people don't seem to believe a word of it?

    I know! I love that they gave that Affidavit! With the door being confiscated before Mr. Pistorious' attorneys and specialists could examine it, they really screwed up by submitting the Affidavit. They walked the crime scene and crafted the Affidavit expertly, but they didn't get to see the door - it was at the Forensics Lab (and they still haven't had access to the door!). And Mr. Pistorious just had to play the Victim Card and say that he was on his stumps! I love it, that lie is biting him and his attorneys in the butt right now!
  • calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cojones wrote: »
    I don't feel the need to smack you back point by point. What you just cannot or do not understand is that the things that WO Botha testified to, on the record in open court, are real things, evidence and findings of the Investigative Teams. That was a Bail Hearing, not a Trial. The prosecution was only obligated to show Cause, not present Forensics, Exhibits, Witnesses, etc... to prove guilt.

    This one point (below) I will try to explain to you, slowly. The Prosecution has two (2), Sworn Under Oath Statements, from witnesses that heard and saw things; those Statements are Evidence, and you cannot brush them away in your petty style and pretend that they are not real or not relevant - They are! Geez, no wonder no one but your friends want to discuss the case with you. Moving on now.

    Quote:
    Botha cited another witness who claimed to have heard "two-to-three shots", seen Pistorius's lights on, then 17 minutes later heard another "two-to-three shots." He said: "We have the statement of a person who said after he heard gunshots, he went to his balcony and saw the light was on. Then he heard a female screaming, then more gunshots." YIKES! :eek:

    What are these "real things"?

    Things like:

    "I believe that he knew that Reeva was in the bathroom"?

    That's not a real thing, its a an opinion.

    Yes, I know it wasn't a trial. But come the trial, forensics will play a bigger part and may actually be able to shed more light on things.

    I am not brushing anything away. We know there were gunshots, so witness testimony of gunshots doesn't help much.

    From the above, we don't know the exact timings - presumably after the shots were fired, the lights did go on.

    IIRC someone has since posted that the 17 minute gap was down to two separate witnesses, not a single witness. I will stand corrected on this point though.

    IIRC another witness was supposed to have said they saw him bashing her skull in with the cricket bat.

    Thanks for explaining it all to me slowly though, presumably because I'm thick.
  • 1fab1fab Posts: 20,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cojones wrote: »
    I know! I love that they gave that Affidavit! With the door being confiscated before Mr. Pistorious' attorneys and specialists could examine it, they really screwed up by submitting the Affidavit. They walked the crime scene and crafted the Affidavit expertly, but they didn't get to see the door - it was at the Forensics Lab (and they still haven't had access to the door!). And Mr. Pistorious just had to play the Victim Card and say that he was on his stumps! I love it, that lie is biting him and his attorneys in the butt right now!

    Do you think the door will also yield evidence as to whether or not he fired at short range? I'm thinking that if he really was that scared of the alleged intruder, he would be likely not to go too close to the door, in case the said intruder burst out, all guns blazing.
  • CojonesCojones Posts: 220
    Forum Member
    calico_pie wrote: »
    What are these "real things"?

    Things like:

    "I believe that he knew that Reeva was in the bathroom"?

    That's not a real thing, its a an opinion.

    Yes, I know it wasn't a trial. But come the trial, forensics will play a bigger part and may actually be able to shed more light on things.

    I am not brushing anything away. We know there were gunshots, so witness testimony of gunshots doesn't help much.

    IIRC someone has since posted that the 17 minute gap was down to two separate witnesses, not a single witness. I will stand corrected on this point though.

    IIRC another witness was supposed to have said they saw him bashing her skull in with the cricket bat.

    Dear Ms Pie,

    You clearly do not have any formal legal training or experience, and I am not going to bang my head against the wall to educate you of the subject - especially since you are refusing to accept the assistance that I have offered to you thus far. Have a nice day.
  • CojonesCojones Posts: 220
    Forum Member
    1fab wrote: »
    Do you think the door will also yield evidence as to whether or not he fired at short range? I'm thinking that if he really was that scared of the alleged intruder, he would be likely not to go too close to the door, in case the said intruder burst out, all guns blazing.

    Yes, it already has been disclosed that he fired from 1.5 meters, on the diagonal, in a downward trajectory.

    Mr. Pistorious claims that he fired from the entry to the bathroom, all four (4) shots. But the evidence shows that he fired from the basin position, inside the bathroom, to get the angle of fire to be able to hit Reeva through the door.

    Also, one spent cartridge was found outside of the bathroom, confirming that he fired one shot from the bathroom entrance. But the other three spent cartridges were found inside the bathroom, confirming that the other three shots were fired inside the bathroom - closer up.

    These facts are also biting them in the butt, his attorneys have to be furious with him! Oscar just had to tell them that he didn't fire from inside the bathroom, he was too scared and vulnerable to go in there in the dark! :)
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    calico_pie wrote: »

    But I was hoping more for some objective facts.

    You mean like Oscars story, which you seem to believe totally?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,830
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm guessing that the shot fired from the furthest distance would be the one that missed after passing through the door, hit the toilet cubicle wall and then ended up in the toilet bowl.

    The bullets shot from 1.5m on the diagonal would seem to be aimed towards the location of the toilet, OP guessing the person would be either on or near the toilet.

    If he shot through the door and achieved the 3 hits on the person inside the toilet, how was he alerted to the position of the person being closer to the toilet than the door ?

    Had he heard the toilet flushing ? (Reeva had an empty bladder.)
  • CojonesCojones Posts: 220
    Forum Member
    petertard wrote: »
    I'm guessing that the shot fired from the furthest distance would be the one that missed after passing through the door, hit the toilet cubicle wall and then ended up in the toilet bowl.

    The bullets shot from 1.5m on the diagonal would seem to be aimed towards the location of the toilet, OP guessing the person would be either on or near the toilet.

    If he shot through the door and achieved the 3 hits on the person inside the toilet, how was he alerted to the position of the person being closer to the toilet than the door ?

    Had he heard the toilet flushing ? (Reeva had an empty bladder.)

    I will give Mr. Pistorious that the door was closed when he shot Reeva, that is true, but there is likely an opening at the top or bottom of that door. He targeted her with accuracy and determination in order to make those shots. He either saw her or he targeted her screams. He wanted to kill her, and he did. He knew where she was in the toilet stall - positioning himself within the bathroom at the right spot, firing at the correct angle and trajectory through the door!

    The bladder thing is a canard that his defense threw out there to claim that Reeva went to the toilet, etc, etc, etc... to support his lies in his Affidavit. Reeva was alive for a long time after he shot her, her heart pumping and she was bleeding. Her kidneys were producing urine throughout that time until she eventually died, then production stopped. The fact that her bladder was completely empty at death means that she voided her bladder when she eventually died or in the few minutes just prior to her death.
  • calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You mean like Oscars story, which you seem to believe totally?

    FFS.

    How many times have I had to say to you now that its not about believing his story, or not believing his story?

    How many times do I have to explain the difference between:

    A. Believing OP's story.

    and

    B. Believing OP's story may be plausible?

    Why, after explaining that as many times I have done, do you still keep saying that?

    Do you really not understand that?
  • calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cojones wrote: »
    Dear Ms Pie,

    You clearly do not have any formal legal training or experience, and I am not going to bang my head against the wall to educate you of the subject - especially since you are refusing to accept the assistance that I have offered to you thus far. Have a nice day.

    I don't need to have formal legal training to understand the difference between objective fact, and unconfirmed speculation.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I must have missed where you mentioned it was plausible.

    However, when you continue to rubbish all other views, then you must expect the same when you continue to blindly support his account.

    If you dont think that is what you're doing, read your posts from others perspectives.



    Continued here: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=64610110#post64610110
This discussion has been closed.