Oscar Pistorius

[whathastheworldcometo]

I watched the 4 part documentary on YouTube today.
It made me very sad.

I think it is correct that only he knows the truth, but it cannot be said without reasonable doubt that he intentionally murdered her.

I could imagine that he was terrified of intruders and there were other cases in which family members had been mistaken for intruders.

If I lived in South Africa would I proactively defend myself when feeling threatened in my home? I don’t know, but when you fear for your life you might.

It is stRange that she still had food in her stomach, but maybe they went to sleep and she got up again to eat something and went back to bed.
I think it is also strange that she should have git out of bed quietly whilst he was removing the fans without saying something to him.

On the other side, it seems that the scream# that were heard were really his and he did not have his prosthetic legs on when shooting, which supports his events.

I feel the original sentence was justified and that it got doubled due to the many protests.

I thought it was funny that Piers Morgan’s face popped up a few times, but at least he didn’t say anything

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

I watched the 4 part documentary on YouTube today.
It made me very sad.

I think it is correct that only he knows the truth, but it cannot be said without reasonable doubt that he intentionally murdered her.

I could imagine that he was terrified of intruders and there were other cases in which family members had been mistaken for intruders.

If I lived in South Africa would I proactively defend myself when feeling threatened in my home? I don’t know, but when you fear for your life you might.

It is stRange that she still had food in her stomach, but maybe they went to sleep and she got up again to eat something and went back to bed.
I think it is also strange that she should have git out of bed quietly whilst he was removing the fans without saying something to him.

On the other side, it seems that the scream# that were heard were really his and he did not have his prosthetic legs on when shooting, which supports his events.

I feel the original sentence was justified and that it got doubled due to the many protests.

I thought it was funny that Piers Morgan’s face popped up a few times, but at least he didn’t say anything

I think the notion that only he knows the truth is quite frankly bullshit. He knows his version of the truth as he has concocted it, he has convinced himself that the narrative he fed this court is accurate. The ‘evidence’ best depicts and explains the truth (truth as people explain it is rarely if ever objective) and the evidence available points categorically to his guilt.

 

[Ceelea]

He's a lying, murdering bastard.

 

[Yas1994]

He's a lying, murdering bastard.

THIS!
my heart breaks for Reeva's family

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I think the notion that only he knows the truth is quite frankly bullshit. He knows his version of the truth as he has concocted it, he has convinced himself that the narrative he fed this court is accurate. The ‘evidence’ best depicts and explains the truth (truth as people explain it is rarely if ever objective) and the evidence available points categorically to his guilt.

True, I just meant to say that only he was there. And Reeva, who sadly cannot speak for herself.

THIS!
my heart breaks for Reeva's family

I am also very sad for them and they looked like it destroyed them.

I just think that there could be a doubt that he was scared of an intruder.

 

[Very traditional]

I get what you're saying but if you're in bed with your partner and hear a noise in the room the first thing you would do is check if it was your partner, either verbally by physically reaching to them in the bed, you wouldn't get up and start shooting without checking.

True, I just meant to say that only he was there. And Reeva, who sadly cannot speak for herself.



I am also very sad for them and they looked like it destroyed them.

I just think that there could be a doubt that he was scared of an intruder.

 

[Moley1]

I get what you're saying but if you're in bed with your partner and hear a noise in the room the first thing you would do is check if it was your partner, either verbally by physically reaching to them in the bed, you wouldn't get up and start shooting without checking.

Exactly this. You would check on tour partner. If you hadn’t how do you know who is moving around in the house? Why shoot through a door when you don’t know who is on the other side, let alone worry about if they are armed or not. Also, if you were an armed intruder, why would you look yourself in a small confined space where you can’t defend yourself. Nothing about his explanation makes sense. I get that someone without legs would feel threatened if there was an intruder in the house but surely even more reason to nudge tour partner? Why would she go to the loo in the middle of the night and lock the door? The most plausible explanation is that they rowed and she locked herself in to get away from him.

 

[FreeAssociation]

Canadian psychologist Dr. Brent Willock has written a book that finally explains to me what likely happened that tragic night. He says, as many of us have, that of course Oscar would have told Reeva that he had heard a sound, that he was grabbing his gun to investigate, etc. And of course he would then realize by her non response that she was not in the bed and therefore she made the sound in the bathroom. Furthermore, when he was screaming at the 'intruders' to leave, Reeva would have told him to calm down because it was only her in the toilet, and so Oscar would have gone back to bed. Of course all this would have happened...if Oscar's brain had been fully awake. Part of his brain was very alert while other key parts were still asleep (parasomnia). Dr. Willock's book has been endorsed by the world's leading experts in sleep disorders. It is called The Wrongful Conviction of Oscar Pistorius: Science Transforms our Comprehension of Reeva Steenkamp's Shocking Death. Highly recommended.

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

Canadian psychologist Dr. Brent Willock has written a book that finally explains to me what likely happened that tragic night. He says, as many of us have, that of course Oscar would have told Reeva that he had heard a sound, that he was grabbing his gun to investigate, etc. And of course he would then realize by her non response that she was not in the bed and therefore she made the sound in the bathroom. Furthermore, when he was screaming at the 'intruders' to leave, Reeva would have told him to calm down because it was only her in the toilet, and so Oscar would have gone back to bed. Of course all this would have happened...if Oscar's brain had been fully awake. Part of his brain was very alert while other key parts were still asleep (parasomnia). Dr. Willock's book has been endorsed by the world's leading experts in sleep disorders. It is called The Wrongful Conviction of Oscar Pistorius: Science Transforms our Comprehension of Reeva Steenkamp's Shocking Death. Highly recommended.

Sounds like complete bollocks to me. Given his conscious erratic/possessive behaviour, dubious associations and all the evidence on the night he is clearly guilty of murder. Nice that a ‘Dr’ is looking to gain notoriety and wealth of from a highly publicised case.....unless they are donating all the proceeds to charity.’Dr’ automatically lends credibility to his theories - incorrect. If you looked at that incident in isolation and he was otherwise of good character a slim ‘maybe’ but once again I say Mr Willock attempted to use the case to gain publicity.

And he is also friends with the Pistorius family on facebook, funny that....

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Exactly this. You would check on tour partner. If you hadn’t how do you know who is moving around in the house? Why shoot through a door when you don’t know who is on the other side, let alone worry about if they are armed or not. Also, if you were an armed intruder, why would you look yourself in a small confined space where you can’t defend yourself. Nothing about his explanation makes sense. I get that someone without legs would feel threatened if there was an intruder in the house but surely even more reason to nudge tour partner? Why would she go to the loo in the middle of the night and lock the door? The most plausible explanation is that they rowed and she locked herself in to get away from him.

This makes sense, although he claimed he shouted out and there was no response.

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

This makes sense, although he claimed he shouted out and there was no response.

‘He claimed’.......he also fired into his bathroom a number of times ‘claiming’ not to know where his girlfriend was.....which kind of discredits his claims.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Sounds like complete bollocks to me. Given his conscious erratic/possessive behaviour, dubious associations and all the evidence on the night he is clearly guilty of murder. Nice that a ‘Dr’ is looking to gain notoriety and wealth of from a highly publicised case.....unless they are donating all the proceeds to charity.’Dr’ automatically lends credibility to his theories - incorrect. If you looked at that incident in isolation and he was otherwise of good character a slim ‘maybe’ but once again I say Mr Willock attempted to use the case to gain publicity.

And he is also friends with the Pistorius family on facebook, funny that....

I just don’t get why he would want to kill her! She wrote him a Valentines Card and even if they argued this is so extreme that it scares me.

I have travelled through South Africa and it is dangerous (was in a dangerous situation once myself and got out as locals helped and protected me) and my boss is from there and had been burgled ten times before she moved to the UK.

I know I would be terrified if someone would be in my house and if I would be less able to run even more so.

Maybe he das a lot of fear due to his disability that he managed to hide well or overcompensated with aggression.

I just don’t get why he would do this on purpose and wrongf convictions are so horrible that I think it needs to be super clear

‘He claimed’.......he also fired into his bathroom a number of times ‘claiming’ not to know where his girlfriend was.....which kind of discredits his claims.

Well, he “claimed” he believed that she was in the bedroom.

Of course it is only possible to say that he “claimed” as nobody can look into his head

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

I just don’t get why he would want to kill her! She wrote him a Valentines Card and even if they argued this is so extreme that it scares me.

I have travelled through South Africa and it is dangerous (was in a dangerous situation once myself and got out as locals helped and protected me) and my boss is from there and had been burgled ten times before she moved to the UK.

I know I would be terrified if someone would be in my house and if I would be less able to run even more so.

Maybe he das a lot of fear due to his disability that he managed to hide well or overcompensated with aggression.

I just don’t get why he would do this on purpose and wrongf convictions are so horrible that I think it needs to be super clear

It is thought she may have been intending to leave him. But truly we will never know as this case has put him at front and centre, the public judgement has been clouded in spite of the weight of evidence against him. RS, the victim should have been the focus not Pistorius. She was robbed of a life because of this idiot, taking a powerful gun and firing it in a confined space in your own home- discriminately or indiscriminately is not a mistake, it is an act of intention. If he didn’t know where his girlfriend was he did not know if it was her behind the door. The evidence at-least points to him knowing it could have been her behind the door. There is strong circumstantial if not unequivocal evidence that points to his guilt, if you can’t see that I would strongly suggest you avoid jury service.

He lived in a secure compound not the most dangerous of environments!

 

[Moley1]

I just don’t get why he would want to kill her! She wrote him a Valentines Card and even if they argued this is so extreme that it scares me.

I have travelled through South Africa and it is dangerous (was in a dangerous situation once myself and got out as locals helped and protected me) and my boss is from there and had been burgled ten times before she moved to the UK.

I know I would be terrified if someone would be in my house and if I would be less able to run even more so.

Maybe he das a lot of fear due to his disability that he managed to hide well or overcompensated with aggression.

I just don’t get why he would do this on purpose and wrongf convictions are so horrible that I think it needs to be super clear



Well, he “claimed” he believed that she was in the bedroom.

Of course it is only possible to say that he “claimed” as nobody can look into his head

I think we would all be terrified which is why the very first thing you would do is the reach out to your loved one surely? As to motive, I believe that their relationship was deteriorating and there was some conjecture that she planned to leave him, maybe that night? He had previous with discharging firearms in a public place too, along with having a short fuse. He by his own admission didn’t know where she was so it was entirely possible that she was the one behind the door when he fired. He shouted out and there was no reply, so if she was somewhere else in the house in the dead of night why not respond from where you are? If there was no reply it doesn’t mean that you can assume that she wasn’t in the loo.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Well, he was convicted by a judge, even if only on appeal, so there must have been evidence.

Hs anyone seen thus movie with Hilary Swank? She played a woman whose brother has been wrongfully convicted of murder and she put herself through law school and proved his innocence.

This left a lasting impression on me and I even developed a fear of being accused and convicted for something I did not do. Maybe this is why I am now so hesitant to say someone is guilty for sure.

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

I think we would all be terrified which is why the very first thing you would do is the reach out to your loved one surely? As to motive, I believe that their relationship was deteriorating and there was some conjecture that she planned to leave him, maybe that night? He had previous with discharging firearms in a public place too, along with having a short fuse. He by his own admission didn’t know where she was so it was entirely possible that she was the one behind the door when he fired. He shouted out and there was no reply, so if she was somewhere else in the house in the dead of night why not respond from where you are? If there was no reply it doesn’t mean that you can assume that she wasn’t in the loo.

He claims ‘there was no reply’ but that is his narrative that implies possible error or mitigation.....when the rest of the evidence is indicative of guilt.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I think we would all be terrified which is why the very first thing you would do is the reach out to your loved one surely? As to motive, I believe that their relationship was deteriorating and there was some conjecture that she planned to leave him, maybe that night? He had previous with discharging firearms in a public place too, along with having a short fuse. He by his own admission didn’t know where she was so it was entirely possible that she was the one behind the door when he fired. He shouted out and there was no reply, so if she was somewhere else in the house in the dead of night why not respond from where you are? If there was no reply it doesn’t mean that you can assume that she wasn’t in the loo.

Yes, it is strange that it would not have startled him that there was no reply from her at all.

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

Well, he was convicted by a judge, even if only on appeal, so there must have been evidence.

Hs anyone seen thus movie with Hilary Swank? She played a woman whose brother has been wrongfully convicted of murder and she put herself through law school and proved his innocence.

Thus left a lasting impression on me and I even developed a fear of being accused and convicted for something I did not do.

I think that’s called paranoia. There are plenty of miscarriages of justice around the world. For example the case of Sean Ellis. The Pistorius case is not one of these....there is an overwhelming weight of evidence. The problem is the cultivated image of celebrities that lead us to believe they are not capable of crimes.....however there is plenty of recent evidence that should encourage us to scrutinise these people more (yew tree etc). Just because you’ve been led to believe people are inspirational, good etc it can often be a smoke screen to the truth.

Yes, it is strange that it would not have startled him that there was no reply from her at all.

That’s his claim - that there was no reply. That’s doesn’t mean it’s true. Did he have recorded proof of ‘no response’ . His narrative is bollocks.

 

[BettyCrocker]

Canadian psychologist Dr. Brent Willock has written a book that finally explains to me what likely happened that tragic night. He says, as many of us have, that of course Oscar would have told Reeva that he had heard a sound, that he was grabbing his gun to investigate, etc. And of course he would then realize by her non response that she was not in the bed and therefore she made the sound in the bathroom. Furthermore, when he was screaming at the 'intruders' to leave, Reeva would have told him to calm down because it was only her in the toilet, and so Oscar would have gone back to bed. Of course all this would have happened...if Oscar's brain had been fully awake. Part of his brain was very alert while other key parts were still asleep (parasomnia). Dr. Willock's book has been endorsed by the world's leading experts in sleep disorders. It is called The Wrongful Conviction of Oscar Pistorius: Science Transforms our Comprehension of Reeva Steenkamp's Shocking Death. Highly recommended.

what a load of garbage.

He killed her in a temper, because he was a nutter who had a hot head and he lost his tit and killed her in a fir of rage.

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

I just don’t get why he would want to kill her! She wrote him a Valentines Card and even if they argued this is so extreme that it scares me.

I have travelled through South Africa and it is dangerous (was in a dangerous situation once myself and got out as locals helped and protected me) and my boss is from there and had been burgled ten times before she moved to the UK.

I know I would be terrified if someone would be in my house and if I would be less able to run even more so.

Maybe he das a lot of fear due to his disability that he managed to hide well or overcompensated with aggression.

I just don’t get why he would do this on purpose and wrongf convictions are so horrible that I think it needs to be super clear



Well, he “claimed” he believed that she was in the bedroom.

Of course it is only possible to say that he “claimed” as nobody can look into his head

No you can’t look in his head, you should challenge his words/account and believe the physical evidence. Also viewing it in the context of his declining behaviour helps too.