Great article and yes it says there that he called his friendI was also glued to the trial & there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knew it was Reeva in the toilet. I think he got the gun out to scare her and then lost control.
All of the evidence - every single shred of it - contradicted his story.
I always thought that this was an excellent summary of his “version”:
Oscar Pistorius: My version of events. Brilliant summary.
A blogger takes a wry look at the account Oscar Pistorius has given of the night he killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.www.biznews.com
(Not sure how to do links. Did that work?)
I bet he thought he could get away with it - she was beautifulDefinately intentional, he was treated like royalty here in South Africa and was arrogant. People like that start thinking they are above the law.
She was beautiful, and she came across as being a nice, caring person too from what I've read.I bet he thought he could get away with it - she was beautiful
You’re not the only one.Something I never understood, he had a live-in housekeeper, living in an annex at the side of the house. Apparently he slept through the whole thing, only woke up when the ambulance arrived. Since I guess he had no information neither prosecution nor defence teams bothered with him in the trial. Always thought that was odd.
South Africa has a Roman Dutch legal system,Yes I watched it and wondered when they were going to stop blowing smoke up his stumpy arse and acknowledge what he did.
Interesting and bizarre that south Africa don't have a jury, I am sure there is a reason for it
Interesting! I thought the rife inequality might be part of the reason.South Africa has a Roman Dutch legal system,
so most trials have always been controlled by magistrates or judges. Sometimes panels of judges are used for appeals or constitutional cases.
Introducing jury trials would be problematic in South Africa because of persisting inequality.
I've heard that the BBC documentary took such a sympathetic view of Pistorius and hardly made any mention of Reeva. It boils my blood so much that I've not been able to bring myself to try and watch it!
How on earth did you think it was balanced? Truly interested.I've finished and I think it was fairly balanced. The first 2 episodes focus a lot on him and his career but the last two focus more in the trial.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Not from SA nor have I ever been but even I know someone who was carjacked there.Hi everyone, long time lurker but had to get involved in this oneSo, I think he’s innocent but does deserve to be in prison purely for the fact he shot to kill an unidentified target who turned out to be his gf. I grew up in SA and the crime really is horrific. You only have to look online for videos of hijackings involving firearms to know that those who survived did so because they reacted quickly. Also, burglars tend to torture and kill people in SA so I understand the fear. When news first broke I also thought it was intentional but if you watch the documentary it does state a lot of the media reports were false. The arguments on what’s app where again spread apart and resolved quickly but where made to seem like they had happened close together and were frequent. From over 1700 texts, only 4 showed some sort of disagreement. There was no signal of domestic violence and she didn’t mention him hurting her physically. I think the screaming/shouting more than likely came from Oscar. As stated in court, Reeva would have been dead at the time the neighbours heard the shouting/screaming. I think he was arrogant, immature and secretly very insecure. As you can all see, I was very invested in the show and would love to hear counter arguments
Yes, I watched it. I was haunted by the event and then the programme (some years ago) that followed it, which left me confused.I’m watching The Trials of Oscar Pistorius on BBC iPlayer. Has anyone else watched this?
Just to be clear, I do think he murdered her so I don't come from a place of thinking it was all an accident. I just felt it was balanced in that, to me, it didn't come across as Team Oscar or Team Reeva when it came to specifically talking about the trial. It was more just a telling of the trial and which way it went. I didn't see it as a documentary that tried to prove one side or another.Interesting! I thought the rife inequality might be part of the reason.
How on earth did you think it was balanced? Truly interested.
The top ballistics guy in South Africa was on a doc and he testified and his evidence pretty much ruined oscar even though he had the best lawyers money could buy.
The BBC doc did not show the true extent of his crime and how he was an excellent shot and kept shooting until he killed reeva
Agree.They were being objective.It certainly didn't feel like they were taking sides.Just to be clear, I do think he murdered her so I don't come from a place of thinking it was all an accident. I just felt it was balanced in that, to me, it didn't come across as Team Oscar or Team Reeva when it came to specifically talking about the trial. It was more just a telling of the trial and which way it went. I didn't see it as a documentary that tried to prove one side or another.
I think the fact that my did he/didnt he emotions swung from one to the other meant it was fair. However, they did spend a lot of time in the first few episodes painting a picture of him as somebody who was decent, kind etc etc to the extent that I thought he couldn't have done it deliberately.Just to be clear, I do think he murdered her so I don't come from a place of thinking it was all an accident. I just felt it was balanced in that, to me, it didn't come across as Team Oscar or Team Reeva when it came to specifically talking about the trial. It was more just a telling of the trial and which way it went. I didn't see it as a documentary that tried to prove one side or another.
Trial by jury or an adversarial system is awful. Most average members of the public are wholly incapable of what is required. The South African system also employed in certain European countries is far better on the whole.Yes I watched it and wondered when they were going to stop blowing smoke up his stumpy arse and acknowledge what he did.
Interesting and bizarre that south Africa don't have a jury, I am sure there is a reason for it
The man is a psychopath, and he was rightly locked up (eventually). He absolutely knew what he was doing. I remember seeing him being interviewed in the 2012 Olympics, after coming second. He was absolutely seething with anger, throwing around accusations of foul play. At the time, I was really shocked and remember thinking he wasn’t actually the nice man he was painted to be.A documentary which you can find on YouTube left me with nightmares.
They showed court footage, the top SA ballistics guy was interesting because he could accurately say how and when the shots were fired. According to him this is how it happened
Oscar chased Reeva into the bathroom with his gun
Once at the bathroom and Reeva being petrified she fled to the toilet and locked the door
Oscar then fired FOUR shots, not one out of anger but four to make sure he'd finish the job
The first hit her hip so she would've screamed and fell (oscar claimed he thought this was an intruder knocking over the magazine holder).
He then shot twice more, one hitting the door knob
At this point and because he is such an excellent marksman he accurately guessed where her head was and finished the job.
In court they showed video footage of oscar shooting water melons with bullseye accuracy and laughing. He lied in court and said he didn't know shooting terminology or how to shoot proficiently.
Then the prosecution showed the shot head of Reeva and likened it to a water melon.
Horrific
He had been abusive to exs
,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?