Re: Oscar Pistorius

by Guest 14.03.14 9:35

It had been brought up, that he seems to have changed his side of the bed [according to a former girl-friend], which could be significant. There may be an innocent misunderstanding, though, IMO, as to what one would call the left or right side of a bed. When on stands in front of the bed, the LEFT would be at one's left hand side, whereas when one lays in it, it could be referred to a as being on the RIGHT side of the bed ...

I was reminded of this by recollection of a former Dutch t.v. presenter [Professor I.A. Diepenhorst for Dutchies winkwink

] , who would always introduce his guests by saying: "To my RIGHT, that's to my LEFT for you, is Mr. so-and-so ...". In filming, the misunderstanding is prevented by using the terms "Camera right" and "Camera left".

by aiyoyo 14.03.14 10:20

Ollie wrote:Pistorius has broken the door using a cricket bat to get into the bathroom because he has realised it was Reeva in there, but why was the gun on the floor of the bathroom ready to fire?

Could it be - he left it there on purpose, also purposely moved RS away from the toilet so that Police won't know the position she was in when she was hit and where/what position she laid dying/dead.
It's called crime scene setting, same as the fans, open balcony, open curtain, cricket bat, prosthetic leg and whatever, it was all just scene staging to suit his purpose.

Apparently from what I read, the type of gun he had can fire up to 10 rounds.
Four bullets later he could not hear her anymore and knew she's dead.
He was in control again now that she's silent so decided to check on her, hence the cricket bat to bash down the door to act out the rest of the story. He was tampering with crime scene when priority was to get help which was only a phone call away without the need to move her.

by aiyoyo 14.03.14 11:27

Châtelaine wrote:It had been brought up, that he seems to have changed his side of the bed [according to a former girl-friend], which could be significant. There may be an innocent misunderstanding, though, IMO, as to what one would call the left or right side of a bed. When on stands in front of the bed, the LEFT would be at one's left hand side, whereas when one lays in it, it could be referred to a as being on the RIGHT side of the bed ...

I was reminded of this by recollection of a former Dutch t.v. presenter [Professor I.A. Diepenhorst for Dutchies ] , who would always introduce his guests by saying: "To my RIGHT, that's to my LEFT for you, is Mr. so-and-so ...". In filming, the misunderstanding is prevented by using the terms "Camera right" and "Camera left".

It's easy - you account for the sides from the headboard as if lying on the bed, and not from the end of the bed viewing in which will result in opposite left and right, it's bound to be.

Sleeping on the right side would mean swinging out of bed on his right side where his prosthetic leg laid (according to his ex) would be about correct. Even in normal circumstances an able-bodied person does not change his habitual routine, so any change or deviation in routine is always red flag.

Reeva was not in pyjamas, she was in casual indoor clothes, another red flag. Likely it was domestic row turned violence turned fatal. He settled an assault case filed by one of his exs just ahead of time of this criminal trial, so it seems there might be a behavourial pattern here. Maybe he assaulted (as in physical violence) RS so she tried to run away but was restrained by him and could't escape maybe bedroom door was locked (hole in bedroom door seen on photo still needs to be explained) so she fled to the toilet, locked herself in so that he couldn't hit her anymore, refused to come out at his behest, he didn't like losing control so he shot her.
When he reached for his gun under the bed surely he would have seen the bed was empty. If he did not wake her up how did he expect her to call the police on his instruction? His story is so full of holes.

I don't understand how come blood was all over his trophies. What was he doing inside the bedroom after he found her ?

No matter the competent, flawless or not of the police work, it will invariably without fail be criticized by Defense side, nothing new there, it's what the Defense Counsel do - pick holes and tear down the police, expert, and forensics evidence to defend client's case.

Roux (sticky paste) is holding centre stage in Court with all his dramatic - take of glasses, pausing, staring, thinking over which voice to put on - third degree spanish inquisition grilling all the witnesses. It's just a mind game and he's damn good at that, manipulation of evidence and mind game.
The Judge is so laid back you would think she's fallen asleep during the proceedings.

It is a live telecast of a high profile homicide case with all the right ingredients to make a grip-tthe-nation-soap that should root people to their chairs, but it is NOT. It is boring to the extreme. I have never seen a high profile live court case as lack lustre as this one.

by margaret 14.03.14 12:12

Ollie wrote:Pistorius has broken the door using a cricket bat to get into the bathroom because he has realised it was Reeva in there, but why was the gun on the floor of the bathroom ready to fire?

The bathroom is separate to the toilet. The toilet is a small lockable room in the corner of the larger bathroom.

There's a photo of him today standing bloodied without his legs on, but then there photos of his bloodied stumps, so when did he put them on to get blood running down them?

by aiyoyo 14.03.14 14:21

margaret wrote:
Ollie wrote:Pistorius has broken the door using a cricket bat to get into the bathroom because he has realised it was Reeva in there, but why was the gun on the floor of the bathroom ready to fire?

The bathroom is separate to the toilet. The toilet is a small lockable room in the corner of the larger bathroom.

There's a photo of him today standing bloodied without his legs on, but then there photos of his bloodied stumps, so when did he put them on to get blood running down them?

When he carried her down the stairs one would suppose he would need his legs for that.

by Mirage 14.03.14 14:42

aiyoyo wrote:
margaret wrote:
Ollie wrote:Pistorius has broken the door using a cricket bat to get into the bathroom because he has realised it was Reeva in there, but why was the gun on the floor of the bathroom ready to fire?

The bathroom is separate to the toilet. The toilet is a small lockable room in the corner of the larger bathroom.

There's a photo of him today standing bloodied without his legs on, but then there photos of his bloodied stumps, so when did he put them on to get blood running down them?

When he carried her down the stairs one would suppose he would need his legs for that.

Indeed.
I haven't read this thread but have been following the trial. I haven't seen the judge seeking clarification on any point, which surprises me. Judges often do in the UK, and not always for the benefit of the jury but for their own understanding. In fact when the defence pursued the ex-girlfriend's use of "often" on semantic grounds the judge looked mystified. Likewise on his wanting to clarify when she talked of him answering his phone in bed during the night, she said "he would have done". He was quite right to push her as to whether that meant he had in fact answered it. Fascinating case.

Priceless that he complained to his defence for upsetting him with an inadvertent screen display of his handiwork.

The type of bullets are significant too. And the ex talked of the car drawing up at the apartment and OP holding a gun at the car window interests me. Particularly as when asked if she felt afraid she answered "I didn't seem to feel afraid". A classic case of not taking ownership of her own feelings. Not afraid in a place like SA being followed by a car? Hmm. The second account she seemed to place the car already there - as if they hadn't been followed and the car drawn up behind. Hmm again!

by Rasputin 14.03.14 15:10

Agree Mirage , the ammunition used is interesting , having fired through the closed door the round would have domed/distorted on impact with the wood , thus becoming considerably larger than •40 , id also expect the poor girl to be peppered by splinters from the door, for an idiot transfixed with weapons the glock with its so called ' safety system ' is an accident waiting to happen as seen in the restaurant fiasco.

It would also be interesting to find out what the phone conversation with the security guard was like did Pistoris hear the phone ring ?, was he shouting having difficulty hearing the guard ?..4 shots in a confined space would make a significant boom , unless Oscar was wearing some kind of ear defence ?

by Liz Eagles 14.03.14 15:41

I'm following the case but not in great detail.

There is no mention of pressing a panic button. These panic buttons are to get through to security. There's no need for a phone call to summon help. Press the button and the armed security company is there within minutes - far quicker than the police. The security company is patrolling the environs 24/7.

Panic buttons are part of the alarm system/security company contract. A gated community has security on its doorstep.

If there were no burglar and Reeva was dead why was the panic button not used? (this is a deliberate obtuse question)

It does seem to boil down to the phone calls - bit like another case.

by Mirage 14.03.14 16:12

Rasputin wrote:Agree Mirage , the ammunition used is interesting , having fired through the closed door the round would have domed/distorted on impact with the wood , thus becoming considerably larger than •40 , id also expect the poor girl to be peppered by splinters from the door, for an idiot transfixed with weapons the glock with its so called ' safety system ' is an accident waiting to happen as seen in the restaurant fiasco.

It would also be interesting to find out what the phone conversation with the security guard was like did Pistoris hear the phone ring ?, was he shouting having difficulty hearing the guard ?..4 shots in a confined space would make a significant boom , unless Oscar was wearing some kind of ear defence ?

Hi Rasputin. Yes, the ammo is a real red flag for me. It is not in general use and is associated with gangs. Way beyond the old dum dum bullet and designed to inflict maximum tissue damage internally.

What also interested me is the car following them home/ or being in situ, depending on the two subtle differences in ex's accounts. It beggars belief the occupants were unknown to OP, or possibly even the ex. who says "I didn't seem to be afraid"??? Not credible to me. You simply would not get out of your car in such circumstances would you? I wonder if he routinely wore a bullet proof vest.

Re the security guard;didn't he maintain he phoned OP due to reported screams and OP said he everything was fine. I think the defence insisted OP had said "I'm Ok" . Evidently the guard heard him crying. I can't recall what transpired next as it was all argued in court and became a bit confusing. Did OP phone security back?

The obsession with guns is incredibly revealing and the incidents seem to indicate a desire to be in control in every circumstance.

I see a high stakes risk-taker at the very least. A person who endangers the lives of others with impunity (restaurant and sun roof incidents) A lack of empathy or consideration for others' situations ( the friends/ the restaurateur/ the diners). An inability to take responsibility (wanting to pass the blame to a friend). Lots of self-indulgent vomiting and possible weeping (head down and body shaking anyway). A sense of entitlement - complains to defence about the photos of his victim being accidentally shown. Anti-authority (angry reaction at police advice on gun).

by Liz Eagles 14.03.14 16:18

Mirage, I've been the victim of a gun/hostage situation in Johannesburg. You don't call your security company. You hit a panic button and they are there within minutes. The first thing burglars do is remove your phones. Security companies are well aware of that.

Oscar only had to hit a panic button and the security company would have been there before he took Reeva downstairs, they would have called the ambulance and the police.

by Rasputin 14.03.14 16:33

Hi Mirage , as with Aquila I havent followed the case closely enough, he's definately a thrill seeker to the point of idiocy, after smashing the door open with the cricket bat and seeing the impact of his shooting and who the victim is he still feels the need to take the loaded weapon into the bathroom? . From what I have seen its reminding me very much of the OJ. Simpson case, yet another one who thinks he's beyond the law.

by Mirage 14.03.14 16:38

aquila wrote:Mirage, I've been the victim of a gun/hostage situation in Johannesburg. You don't call your security company. You hit a panic button and they are there within minutes. The first thing burglars do is remove your phones. Security companies are well aware of that.

Oscar only had to hit a panic button and the security company would have been there before he took Reeva downstairs, they would have called the ambulance and the police.

Thanks aquila. Very interesting. I don't know how much we're allowed to say. Apparently there is free comment allowed in SA as there is no jury system, but I tend to err on the side of caution through habit. No offence to Woofer but I just noticed the OP which I find quite amusing. Perhaps I've become a tad cynical.

by tiny 14.03.14 16:48

aquila wrote:Mirage, I've been the victim of a gun/hostage situation in Johannesburg. You don't call your security company. You hit a panic button and they are there within minutes. The first thing burglars do is remove your phones. Security companies are well aware of that.

Oscar only had to hit a panic button and the security company would have been there before he took Reeva downstairs, they would have called the ambulance and the police.

Why did he take Reeva down stairs,this is what I don't understand,surely you either phone for ambulance or let security phone for you,i think he is as guilty as hell.

by Liz Eagles 14.03.14 16:53

Rasputin wrote:Hi Mirage , as with Aquila I havent followed the case closely enough, he's definately a thrill seeker to the point of idiocy, after smashing the door open with the cricket bat and seeing the impact of his shooting and who the victim is he still feels the need to take the loaded weapon into the bathroom? . From what I have seen its reminding me very much of the OJ. Simpson case, yet another one who thinks he's beyond the law.

...and that does rather depend upon whether he tried to break down the toilet door with a cricket bat before he fired four shots.

by ultimaThule 14.03.14 16:59

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:It had been brought up, that he seems to have changed his side of the bed [according to a former girl-friend], which could be significant. There may be an innocent misunderstanding, though, IMO, as to what one would call the left or right side of a bed. When on stands in front of the bed, the LEFT would be at one's left hand side, whereas when one lays in it, it could be referred to a as being on the RIGHT side of the bed ...

I was reminded of this by recollection of a former Dutch t.v. presenter [Professor I.A. Diepenhorst for Dutchies ] , who would always introduce his guests by saying: "To my RIGHT, that's to my LEFT for you, is Mr. so-and-so ...". In filming, the misunderstanding is prevented by using the terms "Camera right" and "Camera left".

It's easy - you account for the sides from the headboard as if lying on the bed, and not from the end of the bed viewing in which will result in opposite left and right, it's bound to be.

Sleeping on the right side would mean swinging out of bed on his right side where his prosthetic leg laid (according to his ex) would be about correct. Even in normal circumstances an able-bodied person does not change his habitual routine, so any change or deviation in routine is always red flag.

Reeva was not in pyjamas, she was in casual indoor clothes, another red flag. Likely it was domestic row turned violence turned fatal. He settled an assault case filed by one of his exs just ahead of time of this criminal trial, so it seems there might be a behavourial pattern here. Maybe he assaulted (as in physical violence) RS so she tried to run away but was restrained by him and could't escape maybe bedroom door was locked (hole in bedroom door seen on photo still needs to be explained) so she fled to the toilet, locked herself in so that he couldn't hit her anymore, refused to come out at his behest, he didn't like losing control so he shot her.
When he reached for his gun under the bed surely he would have seen the bed was empty. If he did not wake her up how did he expect her to call the police on his instruction? His story is so full of holes.

I don't understand how come blood was all over his trophies. What was he doing inside the bedroom after he found her ?

No matter the competent, flawless or not of the police work, it will invariably without fail be criticized by Defense side, nothing new there, it's what the Defense Counsel do - pick holes and tear down the police, expert, and forensics evidence to defend client's case.

Roux (sticky paste) is holding centre stage in Court with all his dramatic - take of glasses, pausing, staring, thinking over which voice to put on - third degree spanish inquisition grilling all the witnesses. It's just a mind game and he's damn good at that, manipulation of evidence and mind game.
The Judge is so laid back you would think she's fallen asleep during the proceedings.

It is a live telecast of a high profile homicide case with all the right ingredients to make a grip-tthe-nation-soap that should root people to their chairs, but it is NOT. It is boring to the extreme. I have never seen a high profile live court case as lack lustre as this one.

Mr Sticky Paste's grandstanding coupled with the sound of his client's faux retching has ensured this trial rarely achieves dominance of my tv set for more than a moment or two but, nevetheless, I have formed an opinion which is that Oscar Pistorius has need to reflect on, and deal with, his anger management issues and this can best be achieved within the closed confines of an all male establishment for a period of not less than 20 years.

by Mirage 14.03.14 17:26

I must say the forensics officer was put through a ludicrous pantomime (sorry to use that forum-sensitive word but life must go on) with that cricket bat. To watch all the contortions he was made to go through to hit the jackpot was laughable. Bent backed; kneeling down; kneeling down feet flipped up. It's a wonder they didn't ask him to cut his legs off to prove their point. It just demonstrates why some reconstructions don't bear scrutiny: they always go Benny Hillesque.

I think the big problems are going to arise with accusations of contamination of the scene. Didn't an officer go in and pick up the Glock without protective clothing? It never ceases to amaze me how officers right round the world mess up DNA collection. Same thing with Knox in Italy. PdL had their own in-house team: who needs mistakes when the Mcs let the world and his wife traipse around? That the guy noticed a new mark on the morning of his evidence was ridiculous.

I notice they have investigated the OP claim that a burglar had broken in. The wall and window show no marks or signs of this and rule out the possibility he may persist in saying he heard someone and reacted as he did.

by plebgate 15.03.14 9:44

He does seem to be an angry young man.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/sep/03/paralympics-oscar-pistorius-angry-loss

by aiyoyo 15.03.14 12:09

aquila wrote:I'm following the case but not in great detail.

There is no mention of pressing a panic button. These panic buttons are to get through to security. There's no need for a phone call to summon help. Press the button and the armed security company is there within minutes - far quicker than the police. The security company is patrolling the environs 24/7.

Panic buttons are part of the alarm system/security company contract. A gated community has security on its doorstep.

If there were no burglar and Reeva was dead why was the panic button not used? (this is a deliberate obtuse question)

It does seem to boil down to the phone calls - bit like another case.

I know what you mean. I used to lived in the kind of wall-surrounded-fenced-in Apts with gated 24/7 security, and assess to security is by internal intercom button.
If a visitor turns up without me having first informing the security, the security would intercom to check with me.
All non-residents on foot or by vehicles need to register, and time in and time out.

If he was overcome with fear why did he go towards it and fire upon that instead of assessing the situation with Reeva's help and summon Security immediately?
His story just does not gel.

I want to know what were her fears, why did she take her cellphone at that hour into the toilet?
Why was she not in pajamas?

by aiyoyo 15.03.14 12:16

Rasputin wrote:Hi Mirage , as with Aquila I havent followed the case closely enough, he's definately a thrill seeker to the point of idiocy, after smashing the door open with the cricket bat and seeing the impact of his shooting and who the victim is he still feels the need to take the loaded weapon into the bathroom? . From what I have seen its reminding me very much of the OJ. Simpson case, yet another one who thinks he's beyond the law.

Why was there blood on the cricket bat ?
It is a very powerful gun. One that when fires it would have an impact on the firer even if the firer were standing straight aiming at bull-eye, so how did OP manage to fire 4 bullets steadily on his stumps ?

by aiyoyo 15.03.14 12:20

Mirage wrote:I must say the forensics officer was put through a ludicrous pantomime (sorry to use that forum-sensitive word but life must go on) with that cricket bat. To watch all the contortions he was made to go through to hit the jackpot was laughable. Bent backed; kneeling down; kneeling down feet flipped up. It's a wonder they didn't ask him to cut his legs off to prove their point. It just demonstrates why some reconstructions don't bear scrutiny: they always go Benny Hillesque.

I think the big problems are going to arise with accusations of contamination of the scene. Didn't an officer go in and pick up the Glock without protective clothing? It never ceases to amaze me how officers right round the world mess up DNA collection. Same thing with Knox in Italy. PdL had their own in-house team: who needs mistakes when the Mcs let the world and his wife traipse around? That the guy noticed a new mark on the morning of his evidence was ridiculous.

I notice they have investigated the OP claim that a burglar had broken in. The wall and window show no marks or signs of this and rule out the possibility he may persist in saying he heard someone and reacted as he did.

What amazes me is the Judge non-reactive stance to the Defense bullying style. She seems so disengaged as if she's spectator rather than a Judge.

by Liz Eagles 15.03.14 15:07

aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:I'm following the case but not in great detail.

There is no mention of pressing a panic button. These panic buttons are to get through to security. There's no need for a phone call to summon help. Press the button and the armed security company is there within minutes - far quicker than the police. The security company is patrolling the environs 24/7.

Panic buttons are part of the alarm system/security company contract. A gated community has security on its doorstep.

If there were no burglar and Reeva was dead why was the panic button not used? (this is a deliberate obtuse question)

It does seem to boil down to the phone calls - bit like another case.

I know what you mean. I used to lived in the kind of wall-surrounded-fenced-in Apts with gated 24/7 security, and assess to security is by internal intercom button.
If a visitor turns up without me having first informing the security, the security would intercom to check with me.
All non-residents on foot or by vehicles need to register, and time in and time out.

If he was overcome with fear why did he go towards it and fire upon that instead of assessing the situation with Reeva's help and summon Security immediately?
His story just does not gel.

I want to know what were her fears, why did she take her cellphone at that hour into the toilet?
Why was she not in pajamas?

No-one in the court has yet asked why Reeva was in any sort of clothing. At the risk of offending anyone or the memory of Reeva, I can't imagine lying in bed with the new love of my life on Valentine's night wearing anything let alone pyjamas or shorts and a t shirt. I can't imagine a Valentine's evening where the love of my life wouldn't know I wasn't in the bed before he nipped out onto the balcony in the darkness to bring in fans in a house with air conditioning.

Something doesn't add up here.

The prosecution have yet to present their case.

by aiyoyo 15.03.14 15:33

aquila wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:I'm following the case but not in great detail.

There is no mention of pressing a panic button. These panic buttons are to get through to security. There's no need for a phone call to summon help. Press the button and the armed security company is there within minutes - far quicker than the police. The security company is patrolling the environs 24/7.

Panic buttons are part of the alarm system/security company contract. A gated community has security on its doorstep.

If there were no burglar and Reeva was dead why was the panic button not used? (this is a deliberate obtuse question)

It does seem to boil down to the phone calls - bit like another case.

I know what you mean. I used to lived in the kind of wall-surrounded-fenced-in Apts with gated 24/7 security, and assess to security is by internal intercom button.
If a visitor turns up without me having first informing the security, the security would intercom to check with me.
All non-residents on foot or by vehicles need to register, and time in and time out.

If he was overcome with fear why did he go towards it and fire upon that instead of assessing the situation with Reeva's help and summon Security immediately?
His story just does not gel.

I want to know what were her fears, why did she take her cellphone at that hour into the toilet?
Why was she not in pajamas?

No-one in the court has yet asked why Reeva was in any sort of clothing. At the risk of offending anyone or the memory of Reeva, I can't imagine lying in bed with the new love of my life on Valentine's night wearing anything let alone pyjamas or shorts and a t shirt. I can't imagine a Valentine's evening where the love of my life wouldn't know I wasn't in the bed before he nipped out onto the balcony in the darkness to bring in fans in a house with air conditioning.

Something doesn't add up here.

The prosecution have yet to present their case.

Apparently from CCTV she was seen arriving in a black vest which was what she'd on when she was found.
It would appear something happened and she didn't get to change clothes.

OP's shirtless clean torso would suggest he took off his shirt after he'd handled her, which is another weird thing he did.
You can avoid thinking he's tempering with crime scene and evidence.

by **PeterMac** 16.03.14 8:10

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Pistorius_Guilty_Plea.html

Pistorius Guilty Plea
" I would have been more inclined to plead guilty, tell the truth about what happened."

Ike Motloung
S. African Attorney
Alex Crawford, Sky News, reporting from outside the Court in S.Africa on Thursday 13th March 2014.
She speaks with a South African Attorney, Ike Motloung who tells it like it is!

Alex Crawford
So a day of particularly graphic evidence which at times left Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp's friends in obvious distress.

Well joining me now to discuss the day’s Court Room testimony is Theuns Brits who is a former forensic specialist with the SA Police Service and Ike Motloung who is an attorney, and you have on occasion acted as a Judge. Thank you for joining us.
Well Ike Montloung what's your judgement about how the two lawyers are doing at the moment, who's coming out on top, still very early days obviously, and we are just hearing the State’s witnesses being called but what's your view about how it is going?

Ike Motloung:
I’m also just watching with keen interest, but let me tell you what I think. It is a whole maze but eh I think there is a common thread that shines through the whole maze. Most of it I suspect finally will be thrown by the wayside.

A few things are common cause.
There is no doubt that Oscar said he fired the four shots. In my view, and in my understanding, of even the plea by the defence, there is no question that Oscar intended to kill. The question is did he intend to kill the intruder or did he intend to kill Reeva?
So there is no question about the intention. And, and, in our law there is a clear distinction between the intention to kill, which ordinarily would amount to murder, and then the motive is something else.

It’s like if I shoot you in self-defence, there is no question about me intending to shoot and kill you but the motive being self-defence, and the problem with self-defence is that there is this subjective test. The Court will have to look at your conduct all circumstances taken into account, and see whether you acted like a reasonable person, because the Court... the Law expects it of you.
Whether subjectively you get scared too quickly and visit to rush your gun, is not the test, the test is whether…what is it in our law, what kind of conduct is expected of someone who feels, say, under attack, and is armed like Oscar was.
The question…that will be the question that finally will have to be determined. Because, even if it turned out to be an intruder and he intended to shoot and kill the intruder, if the Court finds that on all circumstances or threats, evidence presented that there was no reasonable basis to suspect that he was in danger...like you couldn’t…I’m sure we must all now accept that he couldn’t see beyond the door that had been closed.
We are not sure whether he heard any sounds, and if so, we know that Reeva was not armed amongst others, and we know there was no intruder there, now the question is:
On what basis did he fire those 4 shots? And, if you look at where they were fired, there is no question about the intention to kill
So I am saying, even if it turned out to be an intruder, in our law, even if I find an intruder in my house, I can’t summarily execute him.

Crawford:
Okay, but say, say, you are defending him, you’re the man that’s got to defend him, how are you going to do that?

Motloung:
If I was to defend him, I suspect I would have chosen a different course.

Crawford:
What would that be?

Motloung:
I would have been more inclined to plead guilty, tell the truth about what happened. And if there was an argument and things like those…hopefully say…and I suspect maybe that could well have happened it is one of the main options -something should have triggered whatever happened whether you believe Oscar or you don’t - and then fight the full battle.
I think I would have fought the full battle on sentence rather on the merits.

Crawford:
He may be very grateful you are not his lawyer in that case because he’s denying everything, and he said there was no argument they were in a loving relationship, and he’s obviously pressing ahead to prove his innocence.

END
l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com

by aiyoyo 16.03.14 11:21

It's an open and shut case, fairly obvious he's going to be sent to jail.
It's just a question of on what charge and for how many years.

OP will have to sell everything to fund his defense and the real winner is Roux's bank.

by aiyoyo 17.03.14 20:16

"Oscar did not kill her (Steenkamp), Satan made him do it. I pray to God to help him," Reverend Isaac Malaza told the South African Press Association.
"I came today to pray for Oscar. He shouldn't do something like this again that breaks the hearts of his family."

Malaza added that Steenkamp’s family also had their hearts broken, but what had happened in the early hours of Valentine’s Day should not ruin Pistorius’ family as it was Satan’s fault.
"We hope God will help him so that he doesn't do something like this again," he said.

"It's not just Oscar, a lot of men kill women. So I want God to stay in the hearts of men so they can like their women and not kill them."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/pastor-satan-made-oscar-pistorius-kill-girlfriend-article-1.1723493#ixzz2wFirgyf4

Pastor blames OP's deed on Satan ?

With a pastor like that who says God isn't infallible ?