Discussion in 'Oscar Pistorius' started by beach, Mar 19, 2014.
3.08?, where does that fit in with events??????????????.
Did I not read somewhere that the head security guard got sacked shortly after the arrest? Smells like cover up to me, just like the old charges being suddenly re-instated just before the bail hearing against a certain police officer that had been dropped a year before.
Good point.. I don't think that the jeans were washed with the belt and also if it was hang in bedroom balcony it would fall straight on the ground very farfetched to think that it would turn the corner and end up under the bathroom window..
Perhaps it's explained in OP's own words in that attachment?
Ha....LOVE the way you worded that. So accurate and well said. Thanks. lol
Wow, thanks for this great find! It is both illuminating and prophetic! :star:
Me, too! Cricket bat?
IIRC..When he testified he said it was his "last day" working there.
Neither side that I remember questioned him as to whether he quit or was fired.
I can see your reasoning, but you can't win a case just by saying 'we clearly have a case for premeditated murder, therefore we do not require any further evidence'. Past case history tells us this is usually not sufficient. I feel that OP has done enough irresponsible damage to deserve a very long incarceration. I'm also not convinced that this was an accident. My comments are purely related towards the quality of the evidence presented since the ear-witness statements. Hence my reasoning that I don't feel we're much further than we were in the initial couple of days.
The first three points that you mentioned above rely precisely on the ear-witness statements, which reinforce my initial comment..'my current feeling towards the case is that we're not much further than we were after hearing the initial ear-witness statements.
The last point mentioned above refers to OP's statement, and regardless of whether we feel that he's lying or not, it remains circumstantial, and deserves to be proven one way or the other, otherwise we again are only relying on ear-witness testimony.
That leaves us with the remaining two points regarding OP's failure to call an ambulance. If we can prove what happened in the house, we can then go on to suggest that these actions were an attempt to deceive. If we can't it ends up as speculation. I'd rather have evidence to secure a prosecution, every time.
Despite feeling that OP should be charged accordingly for the killing, which many of us do, what extra evidence have we seen since the first few witnesses that help us to pull apart OP's story? I'm sure you must concede that we've seen very little.
Probably means another problem with time pieces. Perhaps his watch/clock was slow.
Google for how to wipe an Ipad's history. Lots of input some better than others it seems.
Here is one but depending whether you put wipe or clear history brings up lots of options. No doubt something is left somewhere, isn't it always!
Gunshots that killed Reeva
I am not sure that the' fracas or no fracas' is the real issue here. I think it boils down to the believability that 1, he didn't bother to look and see where Reeva was before firing, and 2, that she didn't scream STOP after the first bullet hit her thigh. I think those are the issues that the defense has to grapple with, to walk away from this tragedy. imo :moo:
I believe that's exactly what occurred. I think he dragged her just enough to get her out of the toilet and then picked her up. To me, looking at the crime scene photos, there is a massive pool of blood right by the toilet; followed by what appears to be a blood 'swipe' (as if its her hair); and then there's another pool of blood right by the toilet doorway. I've wondered if the smaller pool - down lower - could have been from one of the other injuries. First pic shows the swipe; second shows the pooled blood by the door. Apologies for the graphic nature.
http://static1.businessinsider.com/...20-/screen shot 2013-05-31 at 11.12.24 am.png
That is such a cute picture from the article! (But 4 days before her death )
I agree with this. There has only been speculation about an argument between them, and that is not enough IMO
If the case boils down to simple believability then Nel needn't have called any witnesses. He would just rely on an emotion based testimony. One cannot claim that a person intended to shoot someone else, without some form of culpability. The judge will convict or acquit based on law, not on emotion.
Believability is not based entirely upon emotion, imo. I am basing it upon common sense. If I hear scary noises in the middle of the night, the FIRST thing I do is check where my husband and kids are, to make sure it is not them making the noise. That is basic common sense, not emotion based.
And IF I accidentally began shooting one of my family members, I assume they would begin screaming out in pain and fear, and would not be totally silent, as OP would like us to believe. Again, common sense, not emotionally based, imo.
I don't have to believe with certainty that they fought loudly that night, to believe he is lying when he gives us that ridiculous story of phantom intruders.It could have happened differently. Maybe she went to use the bathroom and he grabbed her cell, to see who was texting her? And he saw something that angered him and went after her?
It could even have been a warning first shot by perhaps the airgun(wonder if you can tell when it was fired last?) leading to RS locking herself in the toilet room and trying to attract attention by waving her jeans out the window. Then the door being beaten with the bat and when that didn't work to get her out of the toilet room the need arose to shut her up asap and then count on "I always win" to take care of the mess. But yea, maybe it was just slow... :banghead:
What reason could he possibly have for lying about putting his prostheses on before attempting to kick down the door and then breaking it through with a cricket bat?
I don't think your conclusion flows from the "no evidence of footprints" - his prosthetics had socks on them and it's probably that Reeva's body being dragged would obstruct any clear sock prints.