• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's why I was thinking if the prosecutor in Pistorius' case wants to leave an out, overcharging in a way that leaves him/her unable to make the burden would be a way of doing that.

Could you explain why you think a prosecutor would charge him with a crime with the intention of getting him off?

My take on this is:

Oscar has a history of bad temper and disdain for women, other than his mother.

Reeva was probably breaking off their 3 month relationship.

A huge argument ensued and Reeva took refuge in the bathroom.

Oscar shot through the door thinking she was probably sitting on the toilet crying.

She was standing by the door.

So I don't think he planned to kill her, but that was the result of his anger.

I of course could be totally wrong,

I seriously doubt that's what happened.
 
AFAIK, what a DA in the USA does in such a case, is to prosecute for AND murder 1 AND murder 2 AND manslaughter 1 AND manslaughter 2, etc. So the jury simply gets to say yes or no on the highest charge the DA thinks is applicable as well as for all lesser charges of homicide. The press reports, of course, only mention the highest one.

(I don't know your locale, I just assumed US, but my guess is this works in pretty well any locale).

TX, and here you can cascade charges but if your intent is to NOT get a conviction but to have a trial to satisfy public demand you just charge a level you know you can't make and nothing else. This tactic has been used here for charging police officers, and in the past for charging men who murdered their cheating wives. Please bear in mind that I live in a state where a man shot in the head twice with a bolt-action rifle was found to have committed suicide...:jaw-dropp It's also been used to force a jury's hand toward conviction, leaving them with an all or nothing choice.

ETA: angrysoba, to have a trial cuz you have to but let the national hero go in the end (to someplace other than prison for 20 years). I never said it was a GOOD CT...lol
 
Last edited:
C

I seriously doubt that's what happened.


What do you think happened?

1. He thought there was an intruder coming to kill him?

2. He premeditated her murder.

3. It was an accident?

The scenario I described, IMO, does not constitute an accident.
 
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-had-a-bad-temper-20130216


"Steenkamp has been described as a sweet and amazing person who didn’t deserve to die, which has prompted former soccer player Mark Batchelor to reveal details of what led to the fight, in November, in which Pistorius threatened to break his legs because the model had been his close friend.

The Saturday Star newspaper reported that Batchelor said Pistorius’s behaviour on a previous occasion had been problematic.

He claimed Pistorius was fuming when he discovered that, while he was participating in the London Olympics, his then-girlfriend Samantha Taylor had become involved with his multimillionaire friend, Clifton Shores producer Quinton van den Bergh.

“Quinton was [at Kyalami race track] with about 50 people when Oscar approached him. He swore at him badly, saying he had no right to interfere with Sam. He said he would break his legs and **** him up.” Batchelor claimed Van den Bergh was shaken and embarrassed.

He told the Saturday Star he was angry when he heard about the confrontation and he called several mutual friends of Pistorius to tell the runner to back off. A few days later he received a call from Pistorius.

“He called me ‘boy’ and said he wanted to clear the air, saying he had heard I had a problem with him. I told him that he can’t go around threatening people. He said he wasn’t afraid of me and the phone cut,” Batchelor claimed, adding that Pistorius had called back and sworn at him.

Batchelor said he ignored the “challenge” and was shocked to receive a call from a senior police official who asked that he attend a meeting with Pistorius. At the meeting three police “colonels” asked about the fight, intimating that Pistorius had friends in high places.

Bad temper

He claimed Pistorius had a bad temper, and that at the meeting the athlete had a black eye because he had been involved in a fight with a friend the night before.

“The man I heard on the phone is a different man from the image given out there. He carries a gun everywhere and I have seen him be controlling to women.”

In an interview in the February edition of Afrikaans magazine Sarie, Pistorius gave a different version and told of his heartbreak.

“You can’t – or won’t – give your side of the story because you want to keep your private life private. Many of the details in the newspapers have been heartbreaking.

“You trust someone and then they go and do something very unexpected. You learn,” Pistorius told the magazine."
 
What do you think happened?

1. He thought there was an intruder coming to kill him?

2. He premeditated her murder.

3. It was an accident?

The scenario I described, IMO, does not constitute an accident.

I really don't know.

I think the weight of evidence so far is that he intentionally murdered her.

I don't see why she was breaking off the relationship; could it have something to do with her TV show? Perhaps jealousy over a co-star...

Yeah, I don't know. :confused:
 
Don't know if it was mentioned here, but I heard a report that said he she had locked herself in the bathroom and that's where she was killed. Hard to see how his "mistook her for a burglar" defense will fly in that scenario.
 
Don't know if it was mentioned here, but I heard a report that said he she had locked herself in the bathroom and that's where she was killed. Hard to see how his "mistook her for a burglar" defense will fly in that scenario.

Yes, it is certainly difficult to see how that can be explained away.
 
I was wondering how that works in SA - here when you are charged with first degree/ capital murder (premeditation or in commission of another felony usually), if the jury doesn't find those specific prerequisites then the accused must be found not guilty. The jury may think the accused definitely killed the victim, and that a crime was surely committed, but they don't get to make a finding of guilt in deliberation to 2nd degree or manslaughter or something else. They have to make their determination based on the charge they are given.

Are we completely certain about that? I seen to recall I've heard reports of juries in a couple of high-profile cases asking during deliberations if the prosecutor could reduce the charge to, for instance, murder 2 instead of murder 1.
 
(much snipped)
That depends on the projected trajectory of the bullets if they had gone further into the bathroom, and how good a shooter he was.

Probably from about two feet above the floor and angled upward.

Just a guess.
 
Rapport newspaper has said that Oscar assaulted Reeva with a cricket bat before shooting her in the bedroom and bathroom. The autopsy report was completed yesterday.

Some *********** hero.
 
The Rapport is the only source of the autopsy results. No other news agency is reporting these new developements.

They are still reporting on the denials.

I am not surprIsed. The Rapport is an afrikaans newspaper and they obviously have an inside source at the forensics facility.

The Rapport is claiming exclusivity.
 
Requires payment...

That's interesting. There's no paywall if the story is accessed through Google. Anyway, here it is:
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ife-of-pistorius/story-fnb64oi6-1226579685203
OSCAR PISTORIUS carried the body of his dying girlfriend from the blood-streaked floor of the master bathroom in his luxurious Pretoria home and down the stairs.Behind him lay the wooden splinters of the door he had shot through four times and the floor was strewn with spent bullet casings.

Behind him lay the wooden splinters of the door he had shot through four times and the floor was strewn with spent bullet casings.

Edited by Locknar: 
SNIP, breach of rule 4.


In Steenkamp's home-town of Port Elizabeth this weekend, her family fought to preserve their own loved one's legacy. Bizarrely, last night the South African public had a final glimpse of Steenkamp in the reality TV show, Tropika Island of Treasure. The producers said her family had given the go-ahead to broadcast the show, which was recorded on location in Jamaica, in which celebrities compete for a $A110,000 prize, recorded on location in Jamaica, believing it would serve as a tribute to the murdered woman. In the program, Steenkamp says: "The way that you go out and make your exit is so important. You have either made a positive or a negative impact."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Rapport is the only source of the autopsy results. No other news agency is reporting these new developements.

They are still reporting on the denials.

I am not surprIsed. The Rapport is an afrikaans newspaper and they obviously have an inside source at the forensics facility.

The Rapport is claiming exclusivity.

That is most unfortunate. Being a foreigner largely unfamiliar with South Africa or its media, I have no objective way of determining Rapport's credibility or reliability; so I'm forced to regard the Rapport's findings as rumor until some other party is able to independently confirm them.
 
I have no doubt as to the veracity of the reports.

Eta: City Press running same story.

Reputable journos involved.

If such journos exist. ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom