55 replies to this topic

[NewMarketSean]

What is up with the cricket racket with blood on it? Could he have beaten her with it first?

[Oriole85]

She was locked in the bathroom. He got out of bed, put on his legs, got his gun, and shot through the bathroom door 5 times, hitting her four times. She was cowering on the floor while he was shooting. That means she knew she was getting shot at, it wasn't a boom-you're-dead situation.

Dude will be in jail for a long time.

Probably should be, but doesn't mean it will happen

[Mackus]

She was locked in the bathroom. He got out of bed, put on his legs, got his gun, and shot through the bathroom door 5 times, hitting her four times. She was cowering on the floor while he was shooting. That means she knew she was getting shot at, it wasn't a boom-you're-dead situation.

Dude will be in jail for a long time.

Where are you getting this information? I haven't seen anything similar to that, though I haven't been digging for much.

[SportsGuy]

She was locked in the bathroom. He got out of bed, put on his legs, got his gun, and shot through the bathroom door 5 times, hitting her four times. She was cowering on the floor while he was shooting. That means she knew she was getting shot at, it wasn't a boom-you're-dead situation.

Dude will be in jail for a long time.

But if you read the ESPN link, that doesn't like that was the case because of the bullet trajectory.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I think the fact that in South Africa a judge decides guilt is going to work against him. It appears that there is just too much circumstantial evidence here to avoid conviction. A lot of times in American jury trials a defense attorney will focus on one slight inconsistency in the hopes of swaying everyday people into avoiding sending someone to prison but I doubt a judge will be that easily swayed.

[Oriole85]

I think the fact that in South Africa a judge decides guilt is going to work against him. It appears that there is just too much circumstantial evidence here to avoid conviction. A lot of times in American jury trials a defense attorney will focus on one slight inconsistency in the hopes of swaying everyday people into avoiding sending someone to prison but I doubt a judge will be that easily swayed.

Good point, not too familiar with the South African justice system. Wonder how celebs and/or other high-powered people have done in the courts there.

[SammyBirdland]

Where are you getting this information? I haven't seen anything similar to that, though I haven't been digging for much.

I heard it on the radio yesterday, it's from the prosecution's statement.

"Blade Runner" Oscar Pistorius put on his artificial legs and walked across his bedroom before firing four shots through a locked bathroom door, killing his cowering girlfriend in cold blood, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

Reeva Steenkamp, a 30-year-old law graduate and model, died after being hit by three rounds from a 9-mm pistol, prosecutor Gerrie Nel said.

http://www.lcsun-new... ... rough-door

[Pedro Cerrano]

A big thing here, for me, will be motive. If they uncover that he discovered she was cheating on him or they had just had a fight or whatever will really hurt him. If the prosecution is unable to formulate any sort of motive that will be big towards getting him off.

I'm also not sure what the standard of guilt is in South Africa.

[SammyBirdland]

A big thing here, for me, will be motive. If they uncover that he discovered she was cheating on him or they had just had a fight or whatever will really hurt him. If the prosecution is unable to formulate any sort of motive that will be big towards getting him off.

I'm also not sure what the standard of guilt is in South Africa.

Oscar Pistorius 'fought non-stop' with girlfriend on night of killing

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court that an unnamed witness "heard talking that sounded like non-stop fighting from two to three in the morning" shortly before Steenkamp was found dead at Pistorius's Pretoria home last Thursday.

[SportsGuy]

A big thing here, for me, will be motive. If they uncover that he discovered she was cheating on him or they had just had a fight or whatever will really hurt him. If the prosecution is unable to formulate any sort of motive that will be big towards getting him off.

I'm also not sure what the standard of guilt is in South Africa.

But having arguments doesn't mean he killed her.

To me, myu biggest question is simply...why did you feel the need to just start shooting?

[SammyBirdland]

But if you read the ESPN link, that doesn't like that was the case because of the bullet trajectory.

Here's what the detective said about the bullet trajectory:

Botha said the shots were not fired straight at the toilet door, but rather "directly to the toilet, the basin itself."

"If you walk in directly and fire straight at the door you will miss the toilet," he said, suggesting Pistorius had been aiming.

http://timesofindia.... ... 593169.cms

[Pedro Cerrano]

But having arguments doesn't mean he killed her.
To me, myu biggest question is simply...why did you feel the need to just start shooting?

No but it goes to motive. In 99% of murder trials things like that lead to convictions. Rarely do you get the witness that testifies, "yes I saw X shoot Y"

And your question is another point that I'm sure the prosecution will make. If this person is locked in the bathroom, why would you take your gun out and just plaster it with bullets? In some states in our country (again not South Africa) you have a duty to retreat from your premises if you think someone is in your house and you can reasonably escape without fearing bodily harm (the standard is something like that, I'm going off memory).

To me, it looks like this was one of those situations.

[SammyBirdland]

We'll never know if he truly meant to kill his girlfriend or not. My point is that the prosecution is building a pretty believable case against him. He' s going to desperately need one of those sympathetic starstruck juries to beat this one.

[SportsGuy]

No but it goes to motive. In 99% of murder trials things like that lead to convictions. Rarely do you get the witness that testifies, "yes I saw X shoot Y"
And your question is another point that I'm sure the prosecution will make. If this person is locked in the bathroom, why would you take your gun out and just plaster it with bullets? In some states in our country (again not South Africa) you have a duty to retreat from your premises if you think someone is in your house and you can reasonably escape without fearing bodily harm (the standard is something like that, I'm going off memory).

To me, it looks like this was one of those situations.

True...but the forensics normally back up the prosecution in that case, right?

In this case, forensics says that he is telling the truth.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'm not familiar with what the forensics say. If he was shooting a gun into a room and knew a person was in there and that person died, that would be enough for me to convict.

[SportsGuy]

I'm not familiar with what the forensics say. If he was shooting a gun into a room and knew a person was in there and that person died, that would be enough for me to convict.

What if it were for self defense?

See, my issue is simply what i said...why are you shooting? Why aren't you saying, WHO IS THERE!!???

THAT is enough for me to think he is guilty of this. There was no reason to have a shoot first, ask questions later mentality, especially when he knowingly has someone else in the house with him.

[Mackus]

I heard it on the radio yesterday, it's from the prosecution's statement.



http://www.lcsun-new... ... rough-door

That is what the prosecution claims happened. That is not the proven facts of the case. There isn't really much proven yet. The prosecutors and the defense don't agree on if he put on the legs before or after shooting, for example.

[Mackus]

I'm not familiar with what the forensics say. If he was shooting a gun into a room and knew a person was in there and that person died, that would be enough for me to convict.

I know it's not exactly how the law in the US works, but if it was in fact a burglar in the bathroom, I would have no problem with someone shooting into the room even if there is not yet an imminent threat on their life.

You invade someone's house, you should lose all protections of the laws outside it. Invading the home is a threat in an of itself, IMO, so anything that takes place after should give the resident the benefit of the doubt.

[SammyBirdland]

That is what the prosecution claims happened. That is not the proven facts of the case. There isn't really much proven yet. The prosecutors and the defense don't agree on if he put on the legs before or after shooting, for example.

These are the allegations that he is tasked with defending himself against.

Like Sports Guy said, he's going to have a tough time defending why he didn't yell "who's there?" before firing four shots into his locked bathroom door. It's pretty obvious to me that he shot his girlfriend after a fight, but I don't know what juries are like in that country.

[SportsGuy]

These are the allegations that he is tasked with defending himself against.

Did you read what the investigator said?

http://espn.go.com/o... ... police-say