Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Oscar Pistorius



O

One Love

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2011
4,366
Brighton
Are we allowed to discuss this upcoming case?

I have an awful feeling he is going to get off.

Saw the Channel 5 programme last night and the main hole in his story is not knowing that his girlfriend wasn't in the toilet. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that in his shoes, thinking that an intruder was in the building, your first and only priority would have been waking your partner.

Even if it had been an intruder, discharging a firearm when she was asleep probably would have killed her from shock.
 




PILTDOWN MAN

PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
18,705
Hurst Green
One Love said:
Are we allowed to discuss this upcoming case?

I have an awful feeling he is going to get off.

Saw the Channel 5 programme last night and the main hole in his story is not knowing that his girlfriend wasn't in the toilet. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that in his shoes, thinking that an intruder was in the building, your first and only priority would have been waking your partner.

Even if it had been an intruder, discharging a firearm when she was asleep probably would have killed her from shock.
Click to expand...

Using an old cricket saying I think it will be "stumps drawn" on his freedom.
 


Coldeanseagull

Coldeanseagull

Opinionated
Mar 13, 2013
7,786
Coldean
One Love said:
Are we allowed to discuss this upcoming case?

I have an awful feeling he is going to get off.

Saw the Channel 5 programme last night and the main hole in his story is not knowing that his girlfriend wasn't in the toilet. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that in his shoes, thinking that an intruder was in the building, your first and only priority would have been waking your partner.

Even if it had been an intruder, discharging a firearm when she was asleep probably would have killed her from shock.
Click to expand...
Is it cruel for me to find that funny?
Personally, I think it's another 'the glove doesn't fit' case
 


T

The Camel

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2010
1,520
Darlington, UK
A bit strange that we're allowed to speculate about a forthcoming murder case on here, but not the suspension of a football manager and his assistants!

Priorities a little out of proportion imo.
 


O

One Love

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2011
4,366
Brighton
The Camel said:
A bit strange that we're allowed to speculate about a forthcoming murder case on here, but not the suspension of a football manager and his assistants!

Priorities a little out of proportion imo.
Click to expand...

I suppose because NSC isn't based in Johannesburg.
 




Blue Valkyrie

Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
One Love said:
Are we allowed to discuss this upcoming case?

I have an awful feeling he is going to get off.

Saw the Channel 5 programme last night and the main hole in his story is not knowing that his girlfriend wasn't in the toilet. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that in his shoes, thinking that an intruder was in the building, your first and only priority would have been waking your partner.

Even if it had been an intruder, discharging a firearm when she was asleep probably would have killed her from shock.
Click to expand...

I imagine so as I don't think that in South Africa there is the same concept of contempt of court effecting a jury decision, as there is no jury to be influenced.
 
Last edited:


O

One Love

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2011
4,366
Brighton
Coldeanseagull said:
Is it cruel for me to find that funny?
Personally, I think it's another 'the glove doesn't fit' case
Click to expand...

Well done!

Yes, wouldn't surprise me if the case revolves around all the finer points while missing the huge obvious hole in his story.

That's what the Channel 5 programme did last night.
 


vegster

vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
27,894
One Love said:
Well done!

Yes, wouldn't surprise me if the case revolves around all the finer points while missing the huge obvious hole in his story.

That's what the Channel 5 programme did last night.
Click to expand...

I did not see the prog, are you allowed to post the huge obvious hole ? if so please do. For me the huge obvious hole is the fact he went to the veranda for some fresh air.... heard a noise in the toilet, panicked, went back through the bedroom and picked up the gun from the bedside cabinet alongside the bed where his fit girlfriend was no longer sleeping.....and...
 






T

tom

New member
Jul 9, 2009
35
His fate in this dastardly affair will be determined by two pieces of evidence:
1) The position of the holes in the bathroom door and
2) what she was wearing when he shot her.

You see if I'm not right, Watson.
 








BuddyBoy

BuddyBoy

New member
Mar 3, 2013
780
I predict manslaughter and a short sentence of house arrest, followed by a period tagged on curfew. He won't be allowed to compete but his training team will be allowed into his, presumably large, estate. I doubt he'll be back to competing come the Commonwealth Games though.
 


A

ali jenkins

Thanks to Guinness Dave
Feb 9, 2006
9,896
Southwick
There are too many holes in the evidence to convict him and for that reason I don't think we will ever know if he meant to kill her or what he thought was an intruder.

I do find myself believing some of his story but there are too many questions surrounding it to totally believe it fully. The trial will go on for ages when it does eventually start and it will certainly be interesting.
 




vegster

vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
27,894
BuddyBoy said:
I predict manslaughter and a short sentence of house arrest, followed by a period tagged on curfew. He won't be allowed to compete but his training team will be allowed into his, presumably large, estate. I doubt he'll be back to competing come the Commonwealth Games though.
Click to expand...

I also predict an autobiography and a tv special with Oprah Winfrey/ Piers Morgan et al .
 




O

One Love

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2011
4,366
Brighton
vegster said:
I did not see the prog, are you allowed to post the huge obvious hole ? if so please do. For me the huge obvious hole is the fact he went to the veranda for some fresh air.... heard a noise in the toilet, panicked, went back through the bedroom and picked up the gun from the bedside cabinet alongside the bed where his fit girlfriend was no longer sleeping.....and...
Click to expand...

The programme last night mentioned the visit to the verandah. The lawyer supposed to be defending him used the fact that after being outside on the verandah he closed the shutters and curtains which would have blinded him for some while as his eyes got used to the change from light into darkness. Part of his defence is that it was too dark for him to see that his girlfriend was no longer in the bed. They seem to have missed the fact that in the act of opening the curtains and shutters to go on the verandah he would have lit the room so that he could see.

The huge hole that I can't get past is that he didn't wake his girlfriend and warn her before getting his gun and going to investigate. In my mind it is completely unbelievable that he would have done this. I don't know about anyone else but I have woken up at home and thought someone who shouldn't be was in the house and the first thing I did was wake my wife. How would you know there was someone else in the house if you hadn't discounted the person that was supposed to be there?

The programme raised other issues that are against his version as well. She was wearing clothes which she wouldn't have done if she was just popping to the toilet during the night and 2 cell phones were found in the bathroom which suggests she was checking his phone. The toilet door is going to show us whether he had his prosthetic legs on when he shot her.

However the programme also showed that the prosecution are stupid.
 


F

Fungus

Well-known member
NSC Patron
May 21, 2004
7,046
Truro
On the recommendation of a number of people in the original thread, I've been reading "Riotous Assembly" by Tom Sharpe.

I rest my case.
 






BuddyBoy

BuddyBoy

New member
Mar 3, 2013
780
One Love said:
The programme last night mentioned the visit to the verandah. The lawyer supposed to be defending him used the fact that after being outside on the verandah he closed the shutters and curtains which would have blinded him for some while as his eyes got used to the change from light into darkness. Part of his defence is that it was too dark for him to see that his girlfriend was no longer in the bed. They seem to have missed the fact that in the act of opening the curtains and shutters to go on the verandah he would have lit the room so that he could see.

The huge hole that I can't get past is that he didn't wake his girlfriend and warn her before getting his gun and going to investigate. In my mind it is completely unbelievable that he would have done this. I don't know about anyone else but I have woken up at home and thought someone who shouldn't be was in the house and the first thing I did was wake my wife. How would you know there was someone else in the house if you hadn't discounted the person that was supposed to be there?

The programme raised other issues that are against his version as well. She was wearing clothes which she wouldn't have done if she was just popping to the toilet during the night and 2 cell phones were found in the bathroom which suggests she was checking his phone. The toilet door is going to show us whether he hd his prosthetic legs on when he shot her.

However the programme also showed that the prosecution are stupid.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's a simple process of elimination. "Oh it sounds like someone may be in the bathroom, I'd better check it's not the missus first". The process of elimination being to discount ONE person.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here