Well I have no faith in them not to 'find' evidence that suits the prosecution. We shall see.
For all of the bad words directed at the SA Police, you have to give them credit for not leaking information about this investigation. In the US the public pressure would have been demanding progress and bits would come out.
Here is a video of an amazingly professional SA Police Officer discussing the early investigation. If you have 3 minutes:
Oh for goodness sake :rolleyes: I really have heard it all. This thread is beyond stupid now. I think people need to wait until the trial and the facts before making up their own silly scenarios.
People accused of a crime nearly ALWAYS cover themselves so they can't be photographed! Why the devil are people making this fantasy 'scratch' into a story??
I was really intrigued by that post the Gentleman (expert) put up about the volume of urine in the bladder at death; very informative.
But with Reeva surviving the gunshots for so long, being carried about - the hall was very bloody, and the downstairs was very bloody - it ruins the usefulness of the information / conclusions that could be drawn from the empty bladder and time of death. The one thing that it did clarify was that Reeva absolutely did not have to have emptied her bladder before Pistorious shot her, because she stayed alive and continued to produce urine at whatever the specific human volume per minute is - that was brilliant!
Now you're just picking & choosing what you like & quoting as fact. You dismiss most of OP's version because it doesn't go along with yours but believe him when he says Reeva was still alive when the Paramedics arrived??
Now you're just picking & choosing what you like & quoting as fact. You dismiss most of OP's version because it doesn't go along with yours but believe him when he says Reeva was still alive when the Paramedics arrived??
No Lucy, and this type of tactic will not work with me!
The presence of large amounts of blood in the bathroom, the hallway upstairs, and the downstairs area where Reeva eventually died is proof that she was alive for a long time, bleeding out, because her heart was pumping the blood through her body and out of her gunshot wounds that Mr. Pistorious inflicted. I don't need to believe Mr. Pistorious, the science convinced me.
People accused of a crime nearly ALWAYS cover themselves so they can't be photographed! Why the devil are people making this fantasy 'scratch' into a story??
I think, usually criminals who are captured and cover themselves do not want "the public" to see them, know their face. I get that. But this is the famed Oscar Pistorious, all of South Africa knows his name and his face; why would he cover his head / face and hide. I really do not understand that and his counsel would have advised him on that to boot!
I remember the French Ambassador accused of rape in New York, he walked in to the police station with as much character as anyone around him. The charges against him were later dismissed. And I cannot think of any "white collar" criminals that have covered up like that, many accused murderers and street criminals, but no high profile criminals or accused criminals.
This could go on and on, so maybe you can tell me of a well known celebrity that you are aware of who covered themselves for days while being transported, who were not trying to hide something wrong with their face!
People accused of a crime nearly ALWAYS cover themselves so they can't be photographed! Why the devil are people making this fantasy 'scratch' into a story??
Strange that you say it is a fantasy scratch when you can quite clearly see it in the photograph linked. Precisely the kind of scratch that might have been made by Reeva if Pistorius had tried to force her into sex against her will in fact.
No Lucy, and this type of tactic will not work with me!
The presence of large amounts of blood in the bathroom, the hallway upstairs, and the downstairs area where Reeva eventually died is proof that she was alive for a long time, bleeding out, because her heart was pumping the blood through her body and out of her gunshot wounds that Mr. Pistorious inflicted. I don't need to believe Mr. Pistorious, the science convinced me.
You know what Coljones, I'm going to say 'whatever'. I want to believe OP because he is/was a hero to my disabled 7 year old son. And whatever the outcome of the trial no-one can take away OP's amazing achievements. Even I can see holes in his defense but am willing to wait until the trial to hear the FACTS. This thread has become a farce & I'm out.
You know what Coljones, I'm going to say 'whatever'. I want to believe OP because he is/was a hero to my disabled 7 year old son. And whatever the outcome of the trial no-one can take away OP's amazing achievements. Even I can see holes in his defense but am willing to wait until the trial to hear the FACTS. This thread has become a farce & I'm out.
Here is a guy who touched my heart very deeply! He is so fortunate that he has his attitude, his loving wife, and that so cute little girl!!!!!
Strange that you say it is a fantasy scratch when you can quite clearly see it in the photograph linked. Precisely the kind of scratch that might have been made by Reeva if Pistorius had tried to force her into sex against her will in fact.
Search Google for 'Oscar Pistorius scratched face' and the only comments suggesting he was scratched at all come from this thread (no doubt the Daily Mail will concoct a story out of it too).
Very interesting. I hope Oscar uses something like this is his defence (although I'm sure the defence team will include people who are expert on such things anyway).
That's possible, Kap, although it seems he could have had a bodyguard, if he was so frightened, easy on his salary.
Also the open window and balcony door.
Also if he had such easy startle resoonse, did he ever mention it to a doctor.
And was there alcohol, because people black out and don't recall what they did.
Search Google for 'Oscar Pistorius scratched face' and the only comments suggesting he was scratched at all come from this thread (no doubt the Daily Mail will concoct a story out of it too).
You Sir are a ..., well maybe your internet service is acting up.
You know what Coljones, I'm going to say 'whatever'. I want to believe OP because he is/was a hero to my disabled 7 year old son. And whatever the outcome of the trial no-one can take away OP's amazing achievements. Even I can see holes in his defense but am willing to wait until the trial to hear the FACTS. This thread has become a farce & I'm out.
This is very troubling for me. There are many heros in this world, I posted information for you about one MAN who overcame odds that I doubted that he could, and that I don't believe that I could have overcome. But I just have to say that this is so weird, so strange, so awkward. Why would you be posting and debating on a forum such as this? You really love Mr. Pistorious, he means a lot to you and your family, why are you here? He has not been convicted of anything, and your comments here will not influence any future criminal prosecution outcome; so why not live your life and ignore this until a conclusion is reached? I thought that this Forum was filled with intellectuals, debaters, curious people, and so on. I just don't get it...
And by the way, I agree with you that Mr. Pistorious' achievements will live on, regardless.
Strange that you say it is a fantasy scratch when you can quite clearly see it in the photograph linked. Precisely the kind of scratch that might have been made by Reeva if Pistorius had tried to force her into sex against her will in fact.
It looks very minor though, there would be far more damage if it happened in the circumstances you say. There is probably a perfectly innocent explanation - if he had it at his arrest along with other scratches, he will no doubt have been asked about it by the police.
That's possible, Kap, although it seems he could have had a bodyguard, if he was so frightened, easy on his salary.
Also the open window and balcony door.
Also if he had such easy startle resoonse, did he ever mention it to a doctor.
And was there alcohol, because people black out and don't recall what they did.
As far as I know, he didn't actually say the balcony door was open - just that he went on the balcony to get the fan and closed the door etc. behind him. He can still answer that question in court. Maybe it was closed before he went out. He also implied that he only noticed the open window after he heard the noise - something he can also elaborate on in court. He could say he forgot about the ladder because Reeva was already at his home when he arrived there - there is CCTV footage of him driving into the estate after her.
I am not defending or supporting OP, just saying that there is still a lot of room for him to expand on his statement as details have been left out. It will also be difficult to prove he is lying, as the problems Nair had with it are the same as the problems many have here - but basically not much more than he himself would have acted differently. The only concrete and indisputable fact they have is that he shot Reeva, it will be difficult to prove he is lying about how it happened - that is if he is.
As for there being alcohol in play, I don't think the police have said so far whether he/they had been drinking or drunk - the blood tests will prove that one way or the other and it will be disclosed in court.
You know what Coljones, I'm going to say 'whatever'. I want to believe OP because he is/was a hero to my disabled 7 year old son. And whatever the outcome of the trial no-one can take away OP's amazing achievements. Even I can see holes in his defense but am willing to wait until the trial to hear the FACTS. This thread has become a farce & I'm out.
Wanting to believe something doesnt make it so.
Jimmy Savile gave out a lot of "Jim Fixed It For Me" badges over the years. It doesnt alter facts.
OP was a tremendous athlete but many murderers have been most excellent in their professional lives. I find the idea that you are influenced by what you wish was true a bit odd.
I mentioned in an earlier post that the physical effects of the 'fight-or-flight' response could possibly go some way to explaining some of OP's actions, (if we are to accept his claim that he was scared of what he believed to be an intruder). Could that same response also offer another explanation for the number of shots fired? I found this article exploring the impact of the fight-flight response in a gunfight situation and not only does it comment on the loss of peripheral vision, but also on how 'fight-flight' can affect hearing and possibly lead the shooter to fire repeatedly.
The article appears to relate to police in a confrontational situation with the human target identified and in view.
Oscar on the overhand has so far given no evidence of being confronted or seeing any suspicious movement, be he....
Imagined a noise was an intruder
Imagined a builders ladder was used.
Imagined when he shouted an intruder existed in the bathroom and Reeva was in bed.
Imagined the intruder climbed through an open window
Imagined a closed door meant an intruder was in the toilet.
Imagined he was shooting an intruder.
Oscar has previous, I believe in November there was an incident involving a washing machine and earlier in the year their was a similar incident both of which he laughed off.
Did he blank those incidents out of his mind and not think he could be wrong again and best to double check?
Throw in the shooting in the restaurant when he nearly shot a friend you'd think he might have second thoughts before blindly firing numerous shots.
Why did Oscar assume the door being closed meant someone was in the toilet?
From the plans shown in court the door appears to open outwardly, he also had a guest who may have of closed the door.
If the main lights were not on wouldn't Reeva have at least turned the toilet lights on, if the door opened outwardly is it plausible light be seen coming from under the door?
If that's the case is it plausible Oscar might ask himself why an intruder hides in the toilet with the lights on?
Why are people making up random scenarios that are even less believable than OP's story?! "Scratches", "demanding sex" - where did this come from?! It's ridiculous. The idea that the argument between OP and Reeva was because he demanded sex from her and then shot her because she refused him is even less "plausible" than the intruder version.
I agree with lucy by the way that OP will remain a hero to many people regardless of the outcome of this trial.
Why are people making up random scenarios that are even less believable than OP's story?! "Scratches", "demanding sex" - where did this come from?! It's ridiculous. The idea that the argument between OP and Reeva was because he demanded sex from her and then shot her because she refused him is even less "plausible" than the intruder version.
.
I agree with you about the nonsenical made up scenarios .One scratch and we get a completly made up reason now .Its ridiculous .
Ok fine we dont know the facts and of course people will speculate what fits in with the ones we do know .But to veer into fantasy is daft .
Why are people making up random scenarios that are even less believable than OP's story?! "Scratches", "demanding sex" - where did this come from?! It's ridiculous. The idea that the argument between OP and Reeva was because he demanded sex from her and then shot her because she refused him is even less "plausible" than the intruder version.
I agree with lucy by the way that OP will remain a hero to many people regardless of the outcome of this trial.
I still come onto the tread now and again just to see it anything new has come up but stopped posting much a while ago cause of the same things being rehashed to suit the view of the way the poster want the end result to be. But the last few days the things that are being said by both side are becoming rediculas and I think this may be cause a lot of the neutral posted have stopped posting and ate waiting till more info comes out in the trial.
Why did Oscar assume the door being closed meant someone was in the toilet?
From the plans shown in court the door appears to open outwardly, he also had a guest who may have of closed the door.
If the main lights were not on wouldn't Reeva have at least turned the toilet lights on, if the door opened outwardly is it plausible light be seen coming from under the door?
If that's the case is it plausible Oscar might ask himself why an intruder hides in the toilet with the lights on?
In his statement he said he heard a noise coming from the bathroom and realised someone was in there. Whether it can be seen from the bathroom if a light is on in the toilet or not depends on how well the door fits. In our house, you can see light under some doors, with others not at all.
Once again, that is for the police to ascertain - if there was no light, the defence could argue that she switched it off and locked the door when she heard OP should out to the 'intruder'. It will not easy to prove one way or the other.
That "flight or fight" stuff is to provide an explanation as to why someone in that situation might shoot a number of bullets instead of just one. If one bullet had been shot, OP's defence would have an easier time. But the type of gun was a semi-automatic, which means if his hand had not released the trigger it would continue firing.
A semi automatic is not a machine gun. The trigger would have to be pulled four times to fire four shots.
Very, very well spotted. That looks more than a rash to me, it looks like quite a deep scratch from a fingernail, with possibly a slightly lighter scratch or scratches above it.
Oh goodness me. A picture of OP with a deep scratch by his left ear
Comments
Well I have no faith in them not to 'find' evidence that suits the prosecution. We shall see.
For all of the bad words directed at the SA Police, you have to give them credit for not leaking information about this investigation. In the US the public pressure would have been demanding progress and bits would come out.
Here is a video of an amazingly professional SA Police Officer discussing the early investigation. If you have 3 minutes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/feb/14/oscar-pistorius-charged-murder-reeva-steenkamp-video
Agree with this.
& agree with this.
Now you're just picking & choosing what you like & quoting as fact. You dismiss most of OP's version because it doesn't go along with yours but believe him when he says Reeva was still alive when the Paramedics arrived??
No Lucy, and this type of tactic will not work with me!
The presence of large amounts of blood in the bathroom, the hallway upstairs, and the downstairs area where Reeva eventually died is proof that she was alive for a long time, bleeding out, because her heart was pumping the blood through her body and out of her gunshot wounds that Mr. Pistorious inflicted. I don't need to believe Mr. Pistorious, the science convinced me.
I think, usually criminals who are captured and cover themselves do not want "the public" to see them, know their face. I get that. But this is the famed Oscar Pistorious, all of South Africa knows his name and his face; why would he cover his head / face and hide. I really do not understand that and his counsel would have advised him on that to boot!
I remember the French Ambassador accused of rape in New York, he walked in to the police station with as much character as anyone around him. The charges against him were later dismissed. And I cannot think of any "white collar" criminals that have covered up like that, many accused murderers and street criminals, but no high profile criminals or accused criminals.
This could go on and on, so maybe you can tell me of a well known celebrity that you are aware of who covered themselves for days while being transported, who were not trying to hide something wrong with their face!
You know what Coljones, I'm going to say 'whatever'. I want to believe OP because he is/was a hero to my disabled 7 year old son. And whatever the outcome of the trial no-one can take away OP's amazing achievements. Even I can see holes in his defense but am willing to wait until the trial to hear the FACTS. This thread has become a farce & I'm out.
Here is a guy who touched my heart very deeply! He is so fortunate that he has his attitude, his loving wife, and that so cute little girl!!!!!
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/21441720/staff-sgt-travis-mills-has-the-spirit-of-a-hero
Search Google for 'Oscar Pistorius scratched face' and the only comments suggesting he was scratched at all come from this thread (no doubt the Daily Mail will concoct a story out of it too).
That's possible, Kap, although it seems he could have had a bodyguard, if he was so frightened, easy on his salary.
Also the open window and balcony door.
Also if he had such easy startle resoonse, did he ever mention it to a doctor.
And was there alcohol, because people black out and don't recall what they did.
You Sir are a ..., well maybe your internet service is acting up.
Here you go:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-released-bail-sobbing-1725034
"He was sat next to his sister Aimee clutching an iPad and looking straight ahead. He appeared to have a scratch to the front of his left ear."
http://africasacountry.com/2013/03/01/time-magazine-and-the-medias-culture-of-confirmation-bias/
This is very troubling for me. There are many heros in this world, I posted information for you about one MAN who overcame odds that I doubted that he could, and that I don't believe that I could have overcome. But I just have to say that this is so weird, so strange, so awkward. Why would you be posting and debating on a forum such as this? You really love Mr. Pistorious, he means a lot to you and your family, why are you here? He has not been convicted of anything, and your comments here will not influence any future criminal prosecution outcome; so why not live your life and ignore this until a conclusion is reached? I thought that this Forum was filled with intellectuals, debaters, curious people, and so on. I just don't get it...
And by the way, I agree with you that Mr. Pistorious' achievements will live on, regardless.
It looks very minor though, there would be far more damage if it happened in the circumstances you say. There is probably a perfectly innocent explanation - if he had it at his arrest along with other scratches, he will no doubt have been asked about it by the police.
As far as I know, he didn't actually say the balcony door was open - just that he went on the balcony to get the fan and closed the door etc. behind him. He can still answer that question in court. Maybe it was closed before he went out. He also implied that he only noticed the open window after he heard the noise - something he can also elaborate on in court. He could say he forgot about the ladder because Reeva was already at his home when he arrived there - there is CCTV footage of him driving into the estate after her.
I am not defending or supporting OP, just saying that there is still a lot of room for him to expand on his statement as details have been left out. It will also be difficult to prove he is lying, as the problems Nair had with it are the same as the problems many have here - but basically not much more than he himself would have acted differently. The only concrete and indisputable fact they have is that he shot Reeva, it will be difficult to prove he is lying about how it happened - that is if he is.
As for there being alcohol in play, I don't think the police have said so far whether he/they had been drinking or drunk - the blood tests will prove that one way or the other and it will be disclosed in court.
Wanting to believe something doesnt make it so.
Jimmy Savile gave out a lot of "Jim Fixed It For Me" badges over the years. It doesnt alter facts.
OP was a tremendous athlete but many murderers have been most excellent in their professional lives. I find the idea that you are influenced by what you wish was true a bit odd.
The article appears to relate to police in a confrontational situation with the human target identified and in view.
Oscar on the overhand has so far given no evidence of being confronted or seeing any suspicious movement, be he....
Imagined a noise was an intruder
Imagined a builders ladder was used.
Imagined when he shouted an intruder existed in the bathroom and Reeva was in bed.
Imagined the intruder climbed through an open window
Imagined a closed door meant an intruder was in the toilet.
Imagined he was shooting an intruder.
Oscar has previous, I believe in November there was an incident involving a washing machine and earlier in the year their was a similar incident both of which he laughed off.
Did he blank those incidents out of his mind and not think he could be wrong again and best to double check?
Throw in the shooting in the restaurant when he nearly shot a friend you'd think he might have second thoughts before blindly firing numerous shots.
From the plans shown in court the door appears to open outwardly, he also had a guest who may have of closed the door.
If the main lights were not on wouldn't Reeva have at least turned the toilet lights on, if the door opened outwardly is it plausible light be seen coming from under the door?
If that's the case is it plausible Oscar might ask himself why an intruder hides in the toilet with the lights on?
I agree with lucy by the way that OP will remain a hero to many people regardless of the outcome of this trial.
I agree with you about the nonsenical made up scenarios .One scratch and we get a completly made up reason now .Its ridiculous .
Ok fine we dont know the facts and of course people will speculate what fits in with the ones we do know .But to veer into fantasy is daft .
I still come onto the tread now and again just to see it anything new has come up but stopped posting much a while ago cause of the same things being rehashed to suit the view of the way the poster want the end result to be. But the last few days the things that are being said by both side are becoming rediculas and I think this may be cause a lot of the neutral posted have stopped posting and ate waiting till more info comes out in the trial.
In his statement he said he heard a noise coming from the bathroom and realised someone was in there. Whether it can be seen from the bathroom if a light is on in the toilet or not depends on how well the door fits. In our house, you can see light under some doors, with others not at all.
Once again, that is for the police to ascertain - if there was no light, the defence could argue that she switched it off and locked the door when she heard OP should out to the 'intruder'. It will not easy to prove one way or the other.
A lot of amateur fiction authors on this thread.
A semi automatic is not a machine gun. The trigger would have to be pulled four times to fire four shots.
Oh goodness me. A picture of OP with a deep scratch by his left ear
7 years ago
. It is a crass observation. Move on.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-nearly-died-car-1740073