Oscar Pistorius Trial (Merged)
Deep Purple
Posts: 63,255 Forum Member
✭✭
calico_pie wrote: »I don't need to have formal legal training to understand the difference between objective fact, and unconfirmed speculation.
What objective facts are contained in Oscars story? Apart from him shooting his girlfriend?
Continuation of: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1799858
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Don't know about that. But he sure got her, didn't he...
If she had used the loo, flushed the toilet, this might indicate the location of whoever was in the toilet as being close to it, but now surely OP should realise it is not very likely an intruder would alert people in the house to his presence by making the loudest noise possible, the flushing of the toilet. Much more likely it was Reeva, you would think.
Hi, please read this and let's discuss it:
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 - downstairs!
Scant few.
It is however the only version events we have from someone who was there, so that is the story which is under scrutiny.
And I have not rubbished other views. What I have done is consider whether or not they disprove any of what he has said.
He fired from 1.5 meters distance, Reeva was trapped in a very small space and she was screaming (witness Affidavits, under oath). He chose the correct position in the bathroom to fire from, he chose the correct angle to point the gun at Reeva to hit her with three bullets. Reeva is dead with three bullets in her body and head. I'm just not seeing the mystery about this toilet stall issue.
Mr. Pistorious did not screw around and drag out the execution over time with lots of chit chat and bantering, or at least I hope he didn't. Evidence shows Reeva screamed; Mr. Pistorious fired once from the entry, then moved in as close as he possibly could and fired three (3) more times at Reeva as she was screaming 1.5 meters from him. Whether he could see over or under the door is yet to be determined. I'd like to know but I don't see the mystery...
How do you know Reeva was alive for a long time ? Or in fact a short time ?
You are wanting everyone to talk about the statement of events as told by Mr. Pistorious, exclusively; because he was the only one in the house, that is still alive, who can tell you what happened. But the Authorities are telling a different story of events based upon the Investigative Teams findings and witness accounts. But you insist that everyone must discard every shred of evidence, outside of that ridiculous self serving Affidavit - unless it is something that favors Mr. Pistorious' claims. That is unacceptable.
Or, he has come up with a story to fit the circumstances.
No one can disprove he says he heard a burglar, but we can disprove he did hear one.
It's the blood, the continuous bleeding. The bathroom, the hallway upstairs, and the area he placed her downstairs were all described as very bloody. Dead people do not bleed, because their hearts have stopped and no longer pump blood through the body. In this case her heart was beating and pumping blood through her body and out of her gunshot wounds in three (3) areas of the home. You can research this on Wikipedia, look at "Veins" and they will describe this scientific fact.
No, we can't really.
It can be disproved that he heard an actual burglar but it cannot be disproved he heard a noise he thought was a burglar.
In which case we go back to whether he used reasonable force in the circumstances that he believed. (If anyone does believe him, apart from the obvious)
I know, that "noise" thing really has caused Mr. Pistorious a lot of trouble. I can't even remember if he fully described that "noise?" He did right, we know exactly what it is by his description of it? Someone please tell me, I don't feel like reading that Affidavit again.
I think it was a noise so frightening, and threatening, that he had to get a gun, and kill the source of the noise before even wakening his girlfriend.
I still don't quite understand why you think it makes a difference.
I dont need to Goggle anything TY I have laid out enough dead bodies to get the gist of what happens .My question to you was how you know she was alive " a long time " ?
How long was she alive and how do you know ?How long is a a long time in your opinion
It is fact that OP shot to death RS.
He pruposely armed himself with a 9mm pistol.
He purposely moved to the bathroom with it.
He opened fire with considerable accuracy.
Witnesses state the lights were on and there were screams.
OP claims to have heard an intruder.
There was no intruder.
We know of the security setup, gated comunity, guard dogs and alarm in his house.
None of these security items gave any idication of an intruder.
These we know as facts.
You seriously don't think there's any difference at all between knowingly killing Reeva, and mistakenly killing her because he thought he was shooting an armed intruder.
Legally, it will likely mean the difference between premeditated murder and culpable homicide.
Was she shot during the day?
I thought it all happened at night.