Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

I'm just Devastated for him and his family and partners family

Lady if it is a 'story' he would have formed it in a very short space of time, under huge stress and pressure. So it wouldn't necessarily be any better.

He is certainly presenting himself as a very stupid man.

Oh no - don't say sorry. I just meant you're really good at seeing all angles. Was a genuinely meant comment. Did it sound sarcastic? Soz.

I don't know what to think either. I think at this stage, unless there's something monumental to come out tomorrow, then he ought to get bail. The defence have made a good reasonable doubt case. IMO.

also, there were no signs of physical asalt on Reeva other than the bullet wounds. Nothing. That doesn't fit with a profile of DV.

Whatever happens, he should certainly never be licensed to own another gun. Trigger happy doesn't even come close.

Maryz - why feel guilty? When looking at evidence or arguments, it is important to look at all possible interpretations and see which one is supported most strongly...then look at whether that support meets the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (or equivalent).

I think his defence would be much more slick if it was contrived. The fact that things don't hang exactly together is, I think, an indication of plausibility.

It wouldn't make sense for his story to be completely sewn up, given that the events allegedly take place in a time of confusion.

I agree lougle. I could buy OP version of events for the reasons given up thread. The prosecution instead of being 'cast iron' was, in fact, mostly based on the officers extended experience. Doesn't mean he always gets it right.

Weighing up the evidence is the right thing to do, Mary. That's all we can do because we weren't there.

My gut feeling (NOT based on evidence, so could well be wrong) is that he's guilty. I can't even explain why, it just doesn't sit right somehow.

But if I was on a jury, I would have to dismiss that and look at the evidence from every conceivable angle, which is what you're doing. So don't feel guilty.

Martz you speak so much sense. It's good to think objectively about both arguments, not just either defence or prosecution sides or arguments

We shall just have to wait to see what light the forensics shed on the case.

I did of course mean Mary

If he is guilty, I wonder what the scenario was that led up to it.
He must have been in a fit of uncontrollable rage, he acted beyond reason.
I get that this is the action of an abuser, but I still wonder what would have caused it .
Poor,poor girl.

Bloody good job many people on this thread are not responsible for judging the case. Am seriously at how quick people are to condemn, based on judgements such as 'it's weird to lock the bathroom door when you go to the toilet' (er no, I always do).

It's a tragic event, whatever the circumstances, and will be judged in a court, hopefully fairly. Fwiw, the prosecution pretty well collapsed today, and admitted there were no inconsistencies in his story, based on the evidence.

The neighbours who heard screaming were 600m, and couldn't hear OP or Reeva's voices. If they DID hear screaming, perhaps could have been OP screaming for help afterwards.

The bat was used to break down the door. The skull injury to Reeva was from a bullet.

Let's wait and see what the trial throws up. I hate the way a high profile incident like this brings out the arm chair judges on here.

I am also that if he is remanded in custody, it will be in a notoriously violent prison, and he will have his prosthetics taken away so he can't use them as a weapon (ffs), and be confined to a wheelchair. That cannot be right.

lily I didn't know his prosthetics would be taken away ! Guilty or not guilty, that's dreadful.

I hate the way a high profile incident like this brings out the arm chair judges on here What, like you've just done?

I can't see anyone condemning him. There's a real effort to look at both sides, in case you hadn't noticed.

And sorry - it will be in a notoriously violent prison, and he will have his prosthetics taken away so he can't use them as a weapon (ffs), and be confined to a wheelchair. That cannot be right. this is a perfectly ridiculous thing to say. IF he's a cold blooded murderer then he'd deserves to be in prison, like all the other cold blooded murderers.

Lily, you've just proved yourself also to be an armchair judge.
Some people on here believe the defence, others the prosecution, and others just don't know.
It's a major news story, making headlines across the world and the first item on every news broadcast.
Of course it's going to be talked about on MN, and I think the majority of people are giving some really interesting opinions.

Oh yes re see-saw!

I really hope the police don't completely mess up the forensics - they will be essential in proving, to whatever degree possible, what actually went on that night.

"The neighbours who heard screaming were 600m, and couldn't hear OP or Reeva's voices. If they DID hear screaming, perhaps could have been OP screaming for help afterwards."

The supposed witness was 300m away, not 600. You are accusing others of being judgemental, yet offer an apologist perspective which seems designed to present OP as some sort of victim. He is not the victim here.

I think OP's defence team have committed a bit of a boo boo in insisting that

1. the witness was too far away and could not possibly have heard screaming

and

2. the window was open, making OP suspicious that an intruder was inside.

....an open window makes screams a lot more audible to those outside I'd have thought.

I'll be interested to see the toxicology results on OP - whatever was in the bottles of 'herbal remedy', why would he have needles in his possession?

Also interested to see his blood alcohol results - something caused the red mist to descend, no matter who he thought was in the toilet.

Hmm, I thought their point was that the witness was so far away that they couldn't determine who the voice(s) belonged to, not that they couldn't have heard any voices? Also, the witness seems to have got the number of shots wrong, so the defence were alluding to the possibility of the 'non stop shouting having occurred after Reeva had been shot. Ill have to go back and read the guardian feed though, cos I'm not sure if that's what they said, or if that's my interpretation of what was said.