Yoruba_Omoge:

"Appears" innocent.

You should study it.

Lol reasons(s) for his tears is/are speculation(s) on our part. We don't read mind.

But just for crying and showing emotions alone makes him appear remorseful and "innocent".

How do you think these white girls get it easy?

I disagree!

Crying may make someone appear remorseful but never innocent.

Judges, lawyers and the judiciary knows better.

Anybody can cry at any time, but to be proven innocent takes more than tears.

Yoruba_Omoge:

"Appears" innocent.

You should study it.

Lol reasons(s) for his tears is/are speculation(s) on our part. We don't read mind.

But just for crying and showing emotions alone makes him appear remorseful and "innocent".

How do you think these white girls get it easy?

I may agree with you on the remorseful part but innocent because of a few tears? The gods forbid that I as a future lawyer\judge buys that.

If only you know how easy it is for some people to cry, me being their chairperson

I think this topic reads "what do you think" and not "what's your own judgement".....i bliv evryone is entitled to an opinion and should not be crucified for what they think. So, @coogar and @afam4eva, pls, chill a little and let pple say wot they think. U've said ur own and we've heard. I think you can answer people's questions sha but don't judge pple for giving their own opinions.

Now, to the main topic, looking at the facts of the case, there're a few loopholes to fill in:
i. Since there were 4 shots, i believe after the 1st shot, the girlfriend must have started shouting or something and that should have made him to realise it was the girlfriend in the bathroom and not an intruder. Let's imagine you're in your boyfriend's house and you go to take a pee and suddenly, you hear a gunshot aimed towards the bathroom, i think anybody would shout and say something, at least....and i think he should be able to recognize his girlfriend's voice, so, why would he go for 3 more shots or is it dt d girl didn't say anything, she was just swallowing the bullets

ii. After you finish shooting an "intruder" in your house, if you're a normal sane human being that has feelings, don't you think courtesy demands that even if you can't see the person, you should try and open the door to see if the "intruder" still has a bit of life dt you can revive or sumtin. Would you just give 4 shots lyk dt and walk away to check for a girlfriend dt u didn't even care if she was there or not all along? Won't you even try and see d amount of damage you've caused to a life

iii. Who shoots a gun 4 times in the name of defence? Sounds more like a crime of passion to me.

For those saying her bladder was empty, since der's sumtin about she coming in around 2.00am or something from a party, isn't it normal that she might have 'peed' and took a shower at that time?

But then, as someone pointed out, there must be an intent and if there is no proof as to the fact that they were having issues or sumtin, then, there is no case.

All in all, i'm not a judge and i don't av all the facts of the case but 'what i think?', is dt it's a crime of passion.

Where is the body of evidence? 1.) Neighbors heard shouting and arguing from the residence hours before fatal shooting. 2.) The gun holster was found on the victim side of bed which means he had to have known that she was not in bed. 3.) He had to go past her side of the bed to get to bathroom (Most people with guests in their home will check to see if it is the guest making the noise or wandering around in the home before shooting through a locked door) and finally 4.) The trajectory of bullets through door appeared to be at an upward/downward path which means he had on his prothetic legs.He stated that he didn't have them on. The body of evidence both forensics and circumstantial points that there was an argument between the two. She got up went to bathroom and locked door. He followed her with gun and shot into door in anger when she refused to come out. Guilty! This idiot should have known that if you shoot bullets through a closed door there is a high probability that the person inside the room is going to be struck by the bullet. This was gross negligence on his part and should be found guilty of first degree reckless homicide.

His explanation has a lot of holes in it.

I mean what kind of person shoots someone in his bathroom when he knows he's not alone at home?

The intruder story would have made more sense if he was home alone and then heard someone in the bathroom.

He killed that lady on purpose and he'll pay dearly for it

we can't really be sure what might have happened. we don't know what might have transpired hours before or the frame of mind he was in (fright perhaps). don't underestimate adrenaline. it's flight, fight, or fright. not reason. his story does sound credible to me though

[color=#990000][/color]
Its such a shame and pity. I want to believe Pistorious but deep down in ma. Heart,I know he is lying... I feel for him cuz he has no legs but whatever thing/issue he had against Reeva, shouldn't have made him take her life. He went overfar and tho, I aint God,but. He ought be judged and punished for murder. Afterall,neighbours heard screams before the gunshot,so definately,he murdered her intentionally and the disgusting part was that,he called no one but without CONSCIENCE,went to bed.... Arrrgh! Tjats just sheer wwickedness. Once again, I pity him,yet he deserves to go to PRISON for the rest of his life!

this guy clearly has anger issues .he had in the past shot a friend in the leg and also he is a gun freak. personally,i think he's a bitter person either because of his upbringing or because of his predicament which to me is terribly absurd because most people have one or two issues growing up and were still able to navigate it and live above bitterness or hate.
had he been sensitive,he would have realized the handwriting on the wall when he was involved in the previous case but because the recipient of his actions decided to drop the charges. yet. he kept gun-freaking himself and finally landed in this mess and expect us to believe his croaked story.
this was the same guy that his room-mate at the Olympic village in London during the Olympics had to be relocated to other room because if his anger issues.
Inasmuch as i loath his actions, looking deep down into his eyes i feel sympathetic for him but more for the dead beautiful damsel.

[quote author=Yoruba_Omoge]

Showing emotion in courtroom. Appears emotionally distraught, doesn't "look" like a guilty man.[/quote
Oh please, you have never been in a court room. The liars sob the more. It all for show.

This Kind of conclusion/judgment had sent a lot of innocent pple to Jail........how can U be So sure of what transpired there?......just thinking out loud ni o!

DIG1: His excuse does not hold even a drop of water, he killed d lady on purpose.

coogar:

which is which, mr paris10? make up your mind.....

i believe you understand what premeditated murder is...
Oscar didn't premeditate the murder but he killed her out of his stupid rage/anger and his gun-freaking nature assisted him.

[quote author=ochallo][/quote]
true talk! liars sob and if freed will still boast about how they were able to get out with there offense.

Bullshitt explanation , he should have called out first. He is telling bloody lies.

whealthy:

If found guilty at trial, Pistorius faces a life sentence.
What do you think? Premeditated murder or not?

This guy planned to kill his girlfriend and he succeeds, imagine someone whom you were together later turned to a burglar.This is madness he must face the full wrath of the law possibly life jail.No thanks to some orgs which have given various endorsements now stripped him off while his adverts have also be removed from all corners of South Africa what a shame !

Wondering where some people got the idea that there will be no jail term because there was no intent.You need just a murder weapon, evidence that a murder has been committed(which is the dead body) and intent and the intent is the weakest defence link cos the reason for half of the murders committed even in developed countries is not even known.
And the prosecution will definitely push for first degree / premeditated murder. You can push for manslaughter when you shot someone four times with a gun you're not even supposed to have and you claimed there was no initial argument. If he said there was a row or an argument he could have said it was in the heat of the moment but he said no such thing.
I think he's guilty personally though I'm not infallible.

N d Oscar goes 2....

tantita: N d Oscar goes 2....

Prison. . . (No)Break!

i really dont think he has any hope of escaping a jail sentence

[quote author=Yoruba_Omoge]

Showing emotion in courtroom. Appears emotionally distraught, doesn't "look" like a guilty man.[/quote
I am sure you have heard the word DRUGS. That my dear is a very bad thing. The tears might just be of regret not innocence. Looking carefully at the events, you will observe that there is soooo much not being said on his side. That guy is not being true to himself

ddippset: Except oscar was on some kind of substance, otherwise why would someone murder his girlfriend inside his own house? I would kill her in the bushes if I had to or have her wacked without any loose ends. There are a lot of assassins in sa who would do it for a dime even. Since there was no struggle, no assault he couldn't have lost his cool and done the shooting. A lot of things could happen, possibly he always heard her as she went to the bathroom at night but might not have heard on thAt fateful night and that could be the reason he didn't bother to check if she was in bed. I think it wasn't premeditated. He wouldn't kill her in his own home.

Money, power and drugs. These combinations could make a man do ANYTHING

ogugua88: [size=13pt]It's a tricky case. People shouldn't jump to conclusions as we hardly know anything compared to the knowledge prosecutors, defense attorneys, and Pistorius, himself, have.

I don't understand how everyone's jumping to the premeditated murder scenario so quickly. People know him as being paranoid. He has no legs, making him easy to be taken advantage of. He had weapons in the house. Accidentally killing her in paranoia actually makes sense to me. I was watching Piers Morgan Tonight, where Piers was discussing the case with lawyers. Even Piers said the story makes sense.

According to an article we had to read in class, he called his sister saying things along the lines of "I've killed my woman", "God take me", and "I mistook her for a burglar". A lot of murderers have a "murder look" written on them. I don't see that look on Oscar Pistorius, who has been crying and shaking uncontrollably since last week.

I'm not siding with anyone sha. I simply don't understand how anyone can jump to conclusions already.

The chief investigator is sketchy himself. A lot of what he said and eyewitnesses described have already been unraveled, and the chief investigator is facing his own charges; that of attempted murder.

I wonder why these things can never be straightforward.[/size]

I strongly believe that you are oblivious and somewhat 'naive' to the antics of the courtroom. I advise you watch crime dramas and look at the perpetrators when they show their live court appearances, you will be astonished at what people are willing to do to influence the judge and jury before sentences are handed out.

Several times people who arrange a loved one's murder are the ones with the loudest wails and tears. If tears and show of emotions are testaments to people's innocence, we wont need lawyers.

gramci:

You weren't there, so don't jsut conclude

MUST SOMEONE B THERE B4 HE OR SHE CONCLUDES. THEN Y DO U LISTEN TO D NEWS AND READ THE DAILIES. THINK B4 U POST

What absolute rubbish!

You fear an intruder(s) is/are in your house while you and your girl are in bed sleeping.

Is the first thing you would do as you wake up not check if your girl is okay and inform her your are going to deal with the intruder?

So you would go out and if the intruders kill you, your girl does not even have a chance because they would get hold of her because she is still asleep.

His explanation has no logic.

The first thing you would do in that time of danger is get the gun by the bed and THEN INSTINCTIVELY contact your girl, if not verbally then by touch. You would feel for her in the bed and whisper/motion to her you are about to do something, she should stay silent or hide.

Sagamite: What absolute rubbish!

You fear an intruder(s) is/are in your house while you and your girl are in bed sleeping.

Is the first thing you would do as you wake up not check if your girl is okay and inform her your are going to deal with the intruder?

So you would go out and if the intruders kill you, your girl does not even have a chance because they would get hold of her because she is still asleep.

His explanation has no logic.

The first thing you would do in that time of danger is get the gun by the bed and THEN INSTINCTIVELY contact your girl, if not verbally then by touch. You would feel for her in the bed and whisper/motion to her you are about to do something, she should stay silent or hide.

who did this man(ex police-officer) contact before shooting his own son point-blank in the head?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216010/Retired-Chicago-cop-fatally-shoots-son-mistaking-burglar.html

From d pictures I saw on d net, all I can say is dat pitoreious is a gud shooter. Although am still waiting 4 ballistic report from d police. But if u ask me, I think dat guy kill dat gal face to face.

coogar:

who did this man(ex police-officer) contact before shooting his own son point-blank in the head?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216010/Retired-Chicago-cop-fatally-shoots-son-mistaking-burglar.html

Was the son sleeping on the bed next to him?

At least he can have excuse and say he thought the son went to bed, so he had no time to verify.

Sagamite:
Was the son sleeping on the bed next to him?

At least he can have excuse and say he thought the son went to bed, so he had no time to verify.

they were both in the living room, son went out as the man dozed off. he woke up as the son was coming back in through the back door and he mistook him for a burglar - and squeezed the trigger! this is a veteran police officer! you cannot accurately tell how any human being would behave in the face of imminent danger under his roof. humans react differently to emergencies. pistorious story so far has been consistent to all the evidence the prosecutor has gathered so his story makes perfect sense......he's about to be bailed as we speak.

If that is Pristorious story then the girls story might be this: There was deep argument(could be anything) that made him angry and she knew it so she ran to the bathroom and the next are gun shots... How bout that

Well one don't have to be at a crime scene to tell what happened.

I Design: If that is Pristorious story then the girls story might be this: There was deep argument(could be anything) that made him angry and she knew it so she ran to the bathroom and the next are gun shots... How bout that

Well one don't have to be at a crime scene to tell what happened.

the autopsy revealed there was no single drop of urine in her bladder. it simply means she had just finished emptying her bladder when she got killed. if she was running away from an argument that provoked gunshots, would she have had the time to urinate in the loo?

coogar:

they were both in the living room, son went out as the man dozed off. he woke up as the son was coming back in through the back door and he mistook him for a burglar - and squeezed the trigger! this is a veteran police officer! you cannot accurately tell how any human being would behave in the face of imminent danger under his roof. humans react differently to emergencies. pistorious story so far has been consistent to all the evidence the prosecutor has gathered so his story makes perfect sense......he's about to be bailed as we speak.

That is fundamentally different from Pistorious case because, at least, it can be reasonably assumed the son could have gone somewhere else (gone to his bedroom) even if the father does not see him.

Once Pistorious and girl have gone to bed, the most likely place she would be after sleeping is next to him. So he could easily and would have instinctively have checked for her once a feels an intruder was in the house.

If she was not in bed, then the alternative reasonably place she would be at that time is in the toilet.

So he did not do a natural expected reaction of checking for her in bed, and then proceeded to shoot at a place she could possibly be without checking. Haba!

Sagamite:
That is fundamentally different from Pistorious case because, at least, it can be reasonably assumed the son could have gone somewhere else (gone to his bedroom) even if the father does not see him.

it's the same - they were both together in the living room, the son went out as the father drifted to sleep. the father could have asked the "intruder" who he was.....but he didn't. he just shot him point blank.

Once Pistorious and girl have gone to bed, the most likely place she would be after sleeping is next to him. So he could easily and would have instinctively have checked for her once a feels an intruder was in the house.

by the same token, the father should have checked for his son knowing there were 2 of them watching TV before he dozed off. these cases are very similar. pistorious is disabled, such men are vulnerable without their prostheses.

If she was not in bed, then the alternative reasonably place she would be at that time is in the toilet.

he thought she was in bed. bedroom was pitch-black and he heard noises in the bathroom.

So he did not do a natural expected reaction of checking for her in bed, and then proceeded to shoot at a place she could possibly be without checking. Haba!

the same way the ex-cop did not react naturally when he found out his son was no longer beside him in the living room and someone was coming in through the back. i don't really expect the cop to have his gun in his pocket while watching TV. he must have gone to collect his gun somewhere and yet ignored to check if everyone was safe before confronting the intruder. how is this case different to pistorious and why is his statement consistent with the evidence gathered so far?