Gail, I think you make some really good points. I had read somewhere that the victim had bruises on her body that looked as if she had been assaulted. Do you know if this is true?
Gail, I think you make some really good points. I had read somewhere that the victim had bruises on her body that looked as if she had been assaulted. Do you know if this is true?
"She was lying on a cold slab, looking waxy and lifeless. It was heart-breaking, the most terrible thing," Mrs Steenkamp recalled.
"They had put a cap on her head to hide the worst of the bruising where she had been shot, and they had used a lot of make-up. They told me I shouldn't touch her. But I had to kiss her goodbye, I had to."
Or it could be that he's plain terrified. If he killed her in a fit of rage, everything hinges on this ridiculous story. If the ridiculous story is true, same deal - everything hinges on convincing the court that it's not ridiculous.What the news did cover, is that Oscar Pistorius vomited several times during the medical examiner's testimony. At one point it was so bad they had to call a recess.
One has to wonder, was he feeling that bad about what he did, or was that merely a strategy?
It think it is quite possible, especially for someone with anger issues, to shoot their girlfriend in a fit of rage and then be horrified after the fact at what they have done.One has to wonder, was he feeling that bad about what he did, or was that merely a strategy?
The thing is, all the moaning and crying and rocking and covering his ears and now blowing chunks is not really very good for his case.
I'm sure, however it went down, that Oscar Pistorius is desperately regretful and would have that few minutes back at any price. We got that, Oscar. And they don't pass out awards (or pardons) for how horrified you can act - or be.
T And considering that the prosecution's foundation is that Oscar Pistorius is a powder keg on a flaming seesaw during an earthquake, his attorney might want to consider giving his client a damned Xanax before his next performance.
I had a hard time believing his performance today. Maybe he genuinely feels bad, but her family was sitting there and none of them carried on in such a manner.
The Guardian newspaper did an overview of today's testimony. After reading it, I wouldn't be surprised if OP is just terrified of a guilty verdict.
You're right. There doesn't appear to be any logic to it. But then again, I don't think we're dealing with a very 'logical' person here.
Consider this: Oscar Pistorius rose from relative obscurity to become an overnight sensation in the sporting world. Due to a congenital deformity, his lower legs were amputated when he was a small child. One has to wonder what the psychological effects of that might have been. Maybe he was bullied at school? Who knows? But documentaries in which close friends were interviewed show a man with a penchant for firearms. He loves guns. He loves firing guns, shooting at things. Then, along comes all this fame, people revere him, women are throwing themselves at him, the world is at hisfeetblades and he feels invincible. He gets away with pushing people around and dishing out verbal abuse with no consequence. Other people cover up for him. He can do anything and get away with it.
Imho, this man has probably been wanting to fire a gun at somebody for a long time. If he thought there were intruders, his first thought may have been, 'At last, I get to shooting someone'. So, no checking up on girlfriend's whereabouts. No calling out to ascertain if there really was an intruder. No grabbing the phone and calling security. Just get that gun out and shoot.
Logical? To you or I? Hell no. But to Pistorius, yeah.
PS. The X-Files were easier to figure out.
That's correct. I listened to her testimony and she said he screamed at her in anger. What I'm wondering though, is does a scream of anger sound exactly the same as a scream of terror or horror? I don't think so.
I agree. It doesn't make sense not to look around and see where your partner is before you go rushing off to shoot someone. But as I said to Cornflake, I don't think this man has been operating on what you and I would consider logic - or what passes for consensus logic, anyway.
I didn't mean he wasn't, or perhaps wasn't, acting logically. I meant the story itself is bereft of logic.
The whole entitled athlete thing isn't unique to him, nor is the idea that people don't behave according to basic ideas or others' ideas of logic, of course. Adding it all up - the theory that he wouldn't think it was her in the bathroom, then wouldn't even turn his head to look, or put out a hand to feel for her, or alert her to the theoretical intruders, AND didn't notice her absence when he got up, went around for the fan, went for the gun, etc., AND the basic problems with the consistency of his story (like the legs and the height of the shots [and btw, where he'd have to have been to get his legs], and the likelihood that she'd have said nothing, that etc., etc. strains credulity in the same way OJ's explanations did - to the point of complete absurdity. I believe truth is stranger than fiction. I don't believe this mess.
I am not familiar with the way this hearing works. Is there a jury or is the final decision made by the judge?
No jury. Just a judge, who makes the decisions of both fact and law. I think she can find him guilty of murder, or not guilty of murder but guilty of "culpable homicide", or acquit him altogether.
No jury. Just a judge, who makes the decisions of both fact and law. I think she can find him guilty of murder, or not guilty of murder but guilty of "culpable homicide", or acquit him altogether.
I haven't watched it live, just followed it through tweets and articles. I did find the forensic information interesting, but I didn't think the police looked very good. What happened to those watches?
If the defense can prove the police officers didn't do their jobs, OP may walk even if guilty.
If the defense can prove the police officers didn't do their jobs, OP may walk even if guilty.
How?