Mecky Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Well, I find it incredulous that, he seems to have got off the murder charge on basically a technicality. Because the judge seems to completely dismiss all of the prosecution arguments. Not at all, I see it every day in my line of work. No surprises me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PINZ Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Do you think he deliberately killed his gf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Not at all, I see it every day in my line of work. No surprises me So any logic and common sense goes out the window....I don't doubt it happens all the time..Doesn't make it any less irritating though. The theatrical tears don't help either. Seems he's only very macho with a .38 revolver in his hands....Sigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Bit of sage advice to Oscar for the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Well, I find it incredulous that, he seems to have got off the murder charge on basically a technicality. Because the judge seems to completely dismiss all of the prosecution arguments. Common sense in my view would dictate that, if as he claims he heard someone or something, rose from bed. Didn't actually bother to check if Reeva was there still in the bed, got his gun....went down the hallway and into the bathroom...Didn't bother to shout or call out....and pumped 4 bullets into the door knowing whoever was on the other side would more than likely be killed. Once he had made the first shot, surely Reeva would have screamed, wailed, made some sort of noise that he would have recognised as being female?....Yet he chose to pump a further 3 bullets into the door. That to me clearly displays intention to kill. The judge more than once stated that Pistorius was an unreliable witness, a bad witness. Yet from watching on tv, her judgement was based on what he said as a witness - namely that he didn't intend to kill Reeva. Given that she dismissed other witnesses and said they were lying or giving false information, and that they were bad witnesses, how come she automatically believes this one bad witness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricicle Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 The judge more than once stated that Pistorius was an unreliable witness, a bad witness. Yet from watching on tv, her judgement was based on what he said as a witness - namely that he didn't intend to kill Reeva. Given that she dismissed other witnesses and said they were lying or giving false information, and that they were bad witnesses, how come she automatically believes this one bad witness? Its definitely a contradiction and a big one too. I can honestly say with my hand on my heart that i dont believe this could happen over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimo Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 She also said ' it is the unanimous decision of this court ...' I thought she was the only one making the decisions. Or am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 He murdered Reeva Steenkamp, using a high powered pistol, as she was locked inside a small toilet cubicle. Witnesses heard them arguing before this. Texts showed clearly the deceased was scared of Pistorius. They were alone. There was no intruder. Reliable witnesses testified to hearing a woman screaming for her life, "blood curdling screams', before the shots were fired. Defence witnesses were humiliated. Pistorius was shown to be dishonest, evasive and interested only in his own survival - not recounting truth. Pistorius contradicted himself, and simultaneously proferred more than one line of defence. Claiming, in turns, self defence, accidental discharge, psychological lack of responsibility, vulnerability as disabled (although armed with a loaded pistol !). Despite all this, the judge has taken Pistorius' word that he did not intend to kill, and believed the defence version which was peppered with striking improbibilities, which made it "not reasonably possibly true", He killed a defenseless person in a manner that strongly suggests premeditation and the foresight that his actions would kill. He has just been driven away from court, for now, still a free man. what a farce ---------- Post added 12-09-2014 at 14:06 ---------- Acquitted of firing a gun through the car sunroof. he also got off with killing the toilet door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricicle Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 She also said ' it is the unanimous decision of this court ...' I thought she was the only one making the decisions. Or am I wrong? That confused me a bit too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francypants Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Do you think he deliberately killed his gf? I do............................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now