-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
"Blade runner" shoots girlfriend
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Dicko
Michael Carrick
Is he rich? I mean I know he was a Paralympic Champion etc but was he a millionaire from lots of sponsorship etc. or was he still an average joe in the way some of the Winter Olympians (who have to scrape together funding to compete) are?
Just wondering if his home was like any other house in the neighbourhood or if he was living it up in a fancy mansion that made it a more likely target.
Just wondering if his home was like any other house in the neighbourhood or if he was living it up in a fancy mansion that made it a more likely target.
Klinsmania
Bobby Zamora
He was rich, his many sponsorships and endorsements made him very well paid in South Africa. He lived in a gated compound, with security. Accordingly it seems a bit odd that his first thought when he heard the noise was that it was an intruder, rather than his girlfriend. If I heard someone crashing about in my bathroom I'd check if the missus was still in bed before I start shooting (not that I have a gun, but you get the point). It does seem a strange story.
Exactly. So he either didn't scream or he knew what he was doing
Bullet
Luka Modric
Surely there is no debate to be had if they were arguing for hours and she was screaming and he blasts her several times... no judge on earth would believe it was an accident unless he is paid to think that.
I know the defence will try to enter an element of doubt i.e. how do we know for sure blah blah, isn't it possible that he didn't know blah blah, but come on people... that is like saying "isn't it possible Gary Glitter thought these kids were 18?" to which the answer is "yes it is possible... but of course he friggin didn't"
I know the defence will try to enter an element of doubt i.e. how do we know for sure blah blah, isn't it possible that he didn't know blah blah, but come on people... that is like saying "isn't it possible Gary Glitter thought these kids were 18?" to which the answer is "yes it is possible... but of course he friggin didn't"
Was watching a bit of the trial this morning, around half an hour or so.
I is quite a rough and ready process. The person on the stand was demonstrating with the bat how the door was smashed down. He started saying that he had just noticed a new mark on the bat and wanys to enter that as evidence today etc. How the **** can they claim a thorough investigation, was really surprised that nobody jumped on that bandwagon as they were trying to discredit his theory quite a bit.
I didnt quite grasp the claims being a late comer to proceedings, but can assume that they were trying to show he was on his prosthetic legs.
both side were in agreement that the bat to the door came after the shots.
I is quite a rough and ready process. The person on the stand was demonstrating with the bat how the door was smashed down. He started saying that he had just noticed a new mark on the bat and wanys to enter that as evidence today etc. How the **** can they claim a thorough investigation, was really surprised that nobody jumped on that bandwagon as they were trying to discredit his theory quite a bit.
I didnt quite grasp the claims being a late comer to proceedings, but can assume that they were trying to show he was on his prosthetic legs.
both side were in agreement that the bat to the door came after the shots.
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
He is guilty that is for sure....how guilty they will never know as it will be his word against that of a dead woman and the witness statements seem flaky at best.
For whats it worth I think he will be found not guilty or close to it. I don't think after the death of Mandela that SA is ready for another icon to be put to the wind...
For whats it worth I think he will be found not guilty or close to it. I don't think after the death of Mandela that SA is ready for another icon to be put to the wind...
It's the prosecution case that he broke the door down with a cricket bat while on his stumps, it's the defences case he did it while on his prosthetics. They both he agree he shot her on his stumps, there's no dispute about that.
It's not a massive point, more to do with the prosecution trying to show his account was not honest.
I'd say there was enough in it so far for him to get off. What will destroy his story is if the police can show proof that all was not well in their relationship and they'd argued that evening. They have his Iphone and Pistorius conveniently forgot his passcode, but they took it to Apple recently to get it unlocked and view the messages. These and those on Reeva's phone could prove his undoing.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
Anyone still following this?
Has anyone considered that his GF actually thought there was an intruder in the house also, and this was just one big massive mix up that went horribly wrong? I'm surprised the defence haven't taken that angle.
Could this have happened??;
He goes out onto the balcony, and she goes to the toilet. He hears something, gets his gun and as he said in court whispers 'Reeva, call the Police'.
This is the first part that everyone is saying 'Why would you not check she's OK blah blah blah'. I don't think it's that implausible. Put yourself in that situation for a second. You think someone has broken into the room next to you and your GF in a country where 99% of people carry guns and think nothing of shooting anyone to get what they want. Would you want them to know where you are?
So, he makes his way down the corridor shouting 'get out of my house etc etc' meanwhile the GF is in the bathroom. She hears him shouting and thinks there is someone in the house, so locks the door and hides (this would explain the locking of the door). She hears the yells getting closer all and thinks that there actually is an intruder in the house, so locks herself in the bathroom to hide. Not knowing that he thinks she's the intruder.
He goes silent as he gets to the bathroom, she goes to walk out and he fires the shots thinking she's the dude with a gun trying to rob his house.
Clutching at straws???????
Has anyone considered that his GF actually thought there was an intruder in the house also, and this was just one big massive mix up that went horribly wrong? I'm surprised the defence haven't taken that angle.
Could this have happened??;
He goes out onto the balcony, and she goes to the toilet. He hears something, gets his gun and as he said in court whispers 'Reeva, call the Police'.
This is the first part that everyone is saying 'Why would you not check she's OK blah blah blah'. I don't think it's that implausible. Put yourself in that situation for a second. You think someone has broken into the room next to you and your GF in a country where 99% of people carry guns and think nothing of shooting anyone to get what they want. Would you want them to know where you are?
So, he makes his way down the corridor shouting 'get out of my house etc etc' meanwhile the GF is in the bathroom. She hears him shouting and thinks there is someone in the house, so locks the door and hides (this would explain the locking of the door). She hears the yells getting closer all and thinks that there actually is an intruder in the house, so locks herself in the bathroom to hide. Not knowing that he thinks she's the intruder.
He goes silent as he gets to the bathroom, she goes to walk out and he fires the shots thinking she's the dude with a gun trying to rob his house.
Clutching at straws???????
Seedy Ron
Frederic Kanoute
Personally I'd say:
To me his story as reported is entirely implausible, and the prosecution version (violent argument, locks herself in bathroom to escape him, in a rage he puts four bullets through the door with the gun he appears to always have to hand) seems extremely likely.
No.
Yes.
To me his story as reported is entirely implausible, and the prosecution version (violent argument, locks herself in bathroom to escape him, in a rage he puts four bullets through the door with the gun he appears to always have to hand) seems extremely likely.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
It could have happened to be fair though. That's not to say it did. I'm very suprised that they've not suggested it as a possible explanation in court.
What makes you think his story is less plausible than the prosecution based on the evidence presented so far? Genuine question by the way, rather than me arguing with you.
I think he will be found innocent, not necessarily because he is innocent but because there's too much doubt. He'll still go down for manslaughter though.
Seedy Ron
Frederic Kanoute
In your version Millsy, they'd both, at the same time more or less, have to have heard two different intruders - she being the "intruder" he heard of course - so she'd have had to heard something somewhere else in the house. You really think if that had happened, she wouldn't have said something to him? If you heard something in your house, would you really not say anything to your wife/partner? Would that not be the first thing you'd do?
Looking at the BBC image of the layout, which differs from Daisuk's above:
If he's shouting the odds as he claims, and she's in that small cubicle in the bathroom, you really think she wouldn't have responded? Why would an intruder lock themselves in there?
He also never turned on a light? Seems a bizarre notion to me. He goes from the balcony to the bathroom, it's so dark he can't see her not there, but he can find his gun of course, and navigate to the bathroom, and doesn't feel the need to be able to see what he's stumbling into?
He may well get away with the murder charge, but personally I don't think he's innocent, and I don't think it's on the prosecution to disprove everything that could possibly have happened, just to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their version is correct, in all trials like this there's only truly one person who knows for sure what happened, and he isn't going to incriminate himself, but from what I've heard I'm not reasonably doubtful. But I'm not the judge either.
Looking at the BBC image of the layout, which differs from Daisuk's above:
If he's shouting the odds as he claims, and she's in that small cubicle in the bathroom, you really think she wouldn't have responded? Why would an intruder lock themselves in there?
He also never turned on a light? Seems a bizarre notion to me. He goes from the balcony to the bathroom, it's so dark he can't see her not there, but he can find his gun of course, and navigate to the bathroom, and doesn't feel the need to be able to see what he's stumbling into?
He may well get away with the murder charge, but personally I don't think he's innocent, and I don't think it's on the prosecution to disprove everything that could possibly have happened, just to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their version is correct, in all trials like this there's only truly one person who knows for sure what happened, and he isn't going to incriminate himself, but from what I've heard I'm not reasonably doubtful. But I'm not the judge either.
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
In your version Millsy, they'd both, at the same time more or less, have to have heard two different intruders - she being the "intruder" he heard of course - so she'd have had to heard something somewhere else in the house. You really think if that had happened, she wouldn't have said something to him? If you heard something in your house, would you really not say anything to your wife/partner? Would that not be the first thing you'd do?
Looking at the BBC image of the layout, which differs from Daisuk's above:
If he's shouting the odds as he claims, and she's in that small cubicle in the bathroom, you really think she wouldn't have responded? Why would an intruder lock themselves in there?
He also never turned on a light? Seems a bizarre notion to me. He goes from the balcony to the bathroom, it's so dark he can't see her not there, but he can find his gun of course, and navigate to the bathroom, and doesn't feel the need to be able to see what he's stumbling into?
He may well get away with the murder charge, but personally I don't think he's innocent, and I don't think it's on the prosecution to disprove everything that could possibly have happened, just to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their version is correct, in all trials like this there's only truly one person who knows for sure what happened, and he isn't going to incriminate himself, but from what I've heard I'm not reasonably doubtful. But I'm not the judge either.
She wouldn't have had to have heard anything though would she? She's just gone to the toilet whilst he got the fan, no?
He hears a noise (maybe the window in the toilet), gets his gun and starts shouting, meanwhile she's in the loo, thinking - as Millsy says - that there's an intruder elsewhere so she locks herself in for safety.
I think Millsy could well be right.
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
PS - Millsy, the only bit that isn't quite right is her coming out of the loo.
He had to beat the door down with the bat to get to her so she didn't come out, but the rest is totally plausible.
He had to beat the door down with the bat to get to her so she didn't come out, but the rest is totally plausible.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
Maybe he just heard her move then and as he said thought that someone was coming out so fired.
