AshVilla Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Just seen a headline stating that apparently he accidently fired his weapon not once but four times? The bloke goes to a shooting range all the time he knows how to handle a weapon #Guiltyasfuck 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Is he in a slapstick film or something, once is accidental, 4 times is 3 stooges territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 you mean before the reeva steenkamp killing because he's never claimed he accidently shot through the bathroom door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villarule123 Posted April 9, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 9, 2014 There's way too many things occurring in his defence that 99% of the time aren't realisitic. He is guilty, pure and simply. How can you actually prove that someone has shot someone with intent without a camera or an admittance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 There's way too many things occurring in his defence that 99% of the time aren't realisitic. He is guilty, pure and simply. How can you actually prove that someone has shot someone with intent without a camera or an admittance? Its possible he will break down completely under the cross examination from Nel and admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Have they asked him - 'Why did you not think it could possibly be Reeva that was in the toilet?'? If I woke in the middle of the night and heard a window open in my ensuite, I'd think my missus was in there. If I thought it strange that the window was being opened, I'd check to see if my missus was still in bed next to me - that would take a second. Have they checked whether Reeva's fresh fingerprints were on the window handle/frame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 The way the prosecution is conducting this trial is absurd, so emotive and un-professional! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 No mention of fingerprints on window handle/frame. Of course the defence have only just started their case so that may come out later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Don't matter. The investigation and prosecution have been a shambles. They can't prove anything so lying or not Oscar walks. So not only would he escape jail, but he'd get some new legs too? The system's gone mad i tell thee! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 The way the prosecution is conducting this trial is absurd, so emotive and un-professional! Not at all. Nel is being deliberately provocative and emotional. He wants to make Oscar uncomfortable. To make him emotional and to provoke him. Angry upset people dont stick to the script. NRL is looking for chinks in the story....any difference in boring mundane details like the number of fans on the balcony, will help prove Oscar's version is inconsistent and therefore lies. This is the first thing the prosecution have really got right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Nel has run rings around him this morning. Pistorius has changed his tune to he had no reason to shoot and the firearm went off accidentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) He's obviously lying through his teeth about the police opening the curtains, moving the duvet off the bed and moving the big fan. He says the fan is where the duvet is on the photo but according to Nel the cord isn't long enough to stretch that far. When he woke up he he got off the left side off the bed and crawled around on his stumps to open the curtains and the sliding doors to take the fan and place it where he said. During this time Reeva is suppose to have got up without him noticing and gone to the bathroom. His defence is falling apart. Tomorrow will be the decisive day i think. Edited April 10, 2014 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted April 10, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 10, 2014 Nel has run rings around him this morning. Pistorius has changed his tune to he had no reason to shoot and the firearm went off accidentally. Really? Surely its just a matter of time then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) Yes theres noway the judge can't see through his lies. Also how can he wake up, get out of bed then goto the balcony and open the sliding doors. Bring the fans in and close the heavy curtains and during this time Reeva is suppose to have left the room without him seeing or hearing her. He stated she was in bed when he woke up with the duvet covering her lower legs Roux will have to be a magICIAN to get him out of this. Edited April 10, 2014 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaForever1970 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Former Springbok kills daughter in mistake for thiefPolice charge rugby star with murder for shootingThe Guardian, Tuesday 25 May 2004 02.16 BSTA former Springbok rugby player was charged with murder yesterday after he mistook his daughter for a car thief and shot her dead in the family's driveway.Rudi Visagie, 44, apparently assumed that his daughter Marlé, 19, was asleep when he heard her Volkswagen Golf being driven away at 5am on Sunday from their smallholding in Maggiesdal, a rural area in Mpumalanga province.He got out of bed, took his 7.65mm pistol, and fired a shot through the bedroom window, police said.When he went outside he discovered his daughter slumped behind the wheel.She had been hit in the neck and was declared dead upon arrival an hour later at a clinic in the nearby town of Nelspruit.A blood-stained present on the front passenger seat suggested Ms Visagie had been on her way to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday, without telling her parents of the plan."Try, just try, to imagine how they are feeling," a family friend, Susan Baird, told the South African Press Association.In a prepared statement Ms Baird added: "It is with regret and great sadness we confirm that Marlé Visagie died ... in an unfortunate shooting accident. In darkness she was mistaken to be a car thief and was shot at by her father Rudi Visagie."The former Springbok, who represented South Africa in five international rugby games, was released on bail on Sunday and was due to be charged with murder at a magistrate's court yesterday, a police spokesman said.A recent spate of car thefts in the Maggiesdal area had made residents overly cautious, so when Frieda Visagie heard a noise outside just before dawn she woke her husband."Mrs Visagie indicated to Mr Visagie that somebody was busy stealing their daughter's car," said a police statement.The car was about 20 metres (65ft) from the house when the former rugby player opened fire.Police said that two vehicles had been stolen from Mr Visagie's property in recent months, adding: "One can imagine that he was very sensitive about car theft."The tragedy could revive an emotional debate about self-defence and vigilantism in South Africa.Official statistics show that violent crime is stabilising or decreasing, but more than 20,000 South Africans are still murdered every year and the fear of crime is rising, with 23% of people surveyed in a recent poll claiming to have been victims in the past year.Perceptions that the police and courts are overwhelmed have fuelled frustration and resentment, particularly among whites and Indians, according to the poll.And public sympathy for Mr Visagie may be tempered by his apparent lack of a claim to self defence.Under South African law it is only permissible to use a firearm when a life is threatened.The apartheid government passed laws granting the right to kill to defend property, but the new South African constitution overruled this, determining that a life was more precious than property.Mob justice, however, sometimes deems otherwise.Last weekend about 500 residents in Mamelodi, near Pretoria, stoned and burnt to death two men accused of murder and robbery.Clicky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Yes a bit of a difference in both events. Nobody ever thought that he intentionally killed his daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 He got destroyed today So obvious he was changing his story on a regular basis so much that not only nel laughed at him but also the rest of the room with the judge telling them off At one point he was even accused of being a lawyer with some of his answers and the terminology he was using Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Now stating that he felt nothing else could be done at the time apart from grabbing his gun (and going to shoot whoever he believed was in the bathroom). He also says that he wasn't actually ready to shoot and that he dealt with situation on instinct. So he armed himself, prepared his weapon, but suggests that he wasn't actually prepared to use it - albeit before actually using it, several times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 He keeps changing what he saying all the time. Who's the woman next to her mother? as she keeps shaking her head in disbelief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 OP says as he walked down passage he was shouting and screaming loudly for intruders to leave and Reeva to call police. Oh come on Oscar! If you were shouting and screaming loudly surely your missus would have yelled back telling you that she was taking a dump and was NOT and intruder His version of events become more and more implausible the longer i hear this crap Just give the bloke a spade so he can dig himself a bigger hole 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts