Mad Pistorius tries to turn murder trial into Oscar Ceremony!

[TerrierandJune96]

Not sure how many of you are watching the trial (or trying to avoid it!) but the following article from the excellent and very funny Evening Harold has found an angle with the Oscars. Enjoy!

eveningharold.com/2014/03/03/mad-pistorius-turns-murder-trial-into-oscar-ceremony/#more-180307

The account of yesterday's session was very upsetting. Apparently the kind of bullets used in the gun were the type that "mushroom on contact", ie they expand inside the body causing more damage than a "clean" bullet. You have to wonder why he was using those kinds of bullets even on an intruder.

Interesting also that the pathologist said she had eaten during the two hours before her death, whereas Pistorius said they had gone to bed at 10pm, five hours before he killed her.

Yes you do have to wonder why he used those bullets.

He probably used those bullets because he is an arrogant man with an unhealthy interest in guns which goes hand in hand with his casual use of them in public places ( all of which he denies of course )

...or his intent was to kill - his girlfriend or 'the intruder'.

And why was she up eating at 3am? Was it a disturbed night??

Nobody's saying that he shot her for eating in middle of the night, right? His nasty bullets, Her munchies, his arrogance & occasional temper outbursts, etc: None of that is meaningful to me. None of it points to premeditated murder (as I understand premed murder). I still haven't heard a motive for this being premed murder that rings true. I suppose this will get decided on forensics instead.

Does manslaughter (murder by carelessness leading to a significant jail sentence) exist in South African criminal code? The SA legal code can't be so lax as to say that you can shoot any suspected intruder with zero threatening actions by them and go scot free (is it?!)

Judge sitting as sole decider (no jury) can happen in American criminal cases. It's preferred by the defence in cases exactly like this where motivation and technical points of law are very crucial to the verdict between 1 of 2 serious outcomes (such as manslaughter vs. 1st deg murder).

From the evidence a sequence of events is emerging and a picture is developing of that night in question. We have a thread here where people want to comment and question what is emerging.

Yesterday we hear that his gun had nasty expanding bullets - and that doesn't look too good to me. At the least it's irresponsible and at the worst murderous. We don't know for sure I know - but that is my comment on the emerging evidence.

Why wouldn't he have the nastiest possible bullets in his gun (purchased legally, I think?) if he has a gun at all which is very common & ordinary where he lives because of legit high fears of crime?

Monumental stupidity leading to death is still a very serious crime where I'm from, but is it in South Africa?

My questioning mind is also curious about the eating in the middle of the night (3am) and what was all that about?? Was they hungry or just eating during an argument?? Maybe we will find out more.

I don't think the bullets would tell you anything about his state of mind on the night of the shooting unless it could be shown he'd bought them that very day, or something.

There was a South African rugby player who shot his own daughter dead. She was driving away and he shot through the window and found her dead. He got off because it was an accident and it was considered he had suffered enough.
www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/25/southafrica.rugbyunion
So it seems you can shoot someone who you think is an intruder, even if they are driving away from your house (so not self defence.)

That was meant to say "He thought she was an intruder and shot through the window."

Sorry, read it again and he thought she was a car thief not an intruder

In the article it says "Under South African law it is only permissible to use a firearm when a life is threatened. The apartheid government passed laws granting the right to kill to defend property, but the new South African constitution overruled this, determining that a life was more precious than property."

Here's an article saying he was exonerated as he had suffered enough.

www.news.com.au/world/is-there-a-precedent-for-pistorius-in-the-rudi-visagie-case/story-fndir2ev-1226582358690

She was a model & probably had really erratic eating habits; 1am food binge wouldn't surprise me at all.

On vegatables!!

I find myself really just wanting the truth.
From what I have heard and previously read Oscar is a hot headed young man with too much money. To much adoration who thought he could do what he wanted. He had been hurt many times in the past as is quite damaged by events but still seems to think he is invinsable.
Those bullets were clearly bought to severely damage not just stop an intruder.
If you read Darren frescos twitter from last year he darren cleaarly loved Reeva. He and Oscar clearly both loved there fast cars women and guns but Oscar went over the mark.
Roux really bugs me. He twits things and seems like he is stopping the truth.
I for one actually don't expect it to result in a murder conviction. Hope though he isn't acquitted and is sentanced for culpable homicide. If he isn't sentenced which I gather can occur I fear is arrogance will redirect its self.
Must also bear in mind Roux will have told him if he feels emotional to let it out. Not saying things aren't upsetting for Oscar but the demonstration of emotion is probibly to his advantage.
Got to feel soory for his brother and Sister and of course Reevas friends and family
.
Really hope the truth will out and justice is served

I read that the bullets are pretty common in SA. So I wouldn't read too much into what type of bullets he had.

HolidayCriminal: "Nobody's saying that he shot her for eating in middle of the night, right?"

No. The point is that he may have lied about what time they went to bed. His story is they went to bed at 10, fell asleep, he got up when he heard the intruder. The prosecution is saying that they stayed awake later and had an argument.

I think it's very significant to the case that he lied about the time they ate and also the fact that it was only 2 hours before he shot her.

This so far is the only circumstantial evidence that helps the prosecution.

Did they actually go back to sleep in the 2 hours before he shot her ?

the OPs link just isnt funny

nothing to do with taste

the OP ONLY posts crap about " the evening harold"

your blog op?

You are probably right there Lord Palmerston. It's pretty lame. Maybe we should start a new thread.

I have not actually read anything from the OP ,I just picked up on the end of the thread last night .

Will start a new thread...