Oscar Pistorius, das Model, der Valentinstag und das war dann Notwehr

obskur schrieb:Und die Waffe musste in seiner Version auch erstmal mit, weil sie wurde vor dem Klo ungesichert gefunden... wie will er an dem Punkt klar machen, warum da die Waffe lag, wo er noch nicht wusste, ob der Intruder erledigt ist und wo er noch immer nicht wusste, ob es evtl. einen 2. Intruder gibt. Da währe grob fahrlässig da gleich die Waffe da hin zu legen.

Waffe im Schlafzimmer

CosmicQueen schrieb:er hätte da ja auch lügen könne, hat er aber nicht.

obskur schrieb:Mir fehlt nur die Erklärung zum Essen, warum er das nicht gleich anders gedreht hat.

obskur schrieb:Mir fehlt nur die Erklärung zum Essen, warum er das nicht gleich anders gedreht hat.

bobotiger schrieb: Warum hat er überhaupt gesagt, er hätte links geschlafen? Warum hat er gemeint, Reeva hätte noch mit ihm gesprochen? Warum hat er gesagt, er hätte ihr mehrfach etwas zugerufen? Warum hat er gemeint, er hätte die Waffe noch hin- und hergetragen? Das alles ist doch eher zu seinem Nachteil. Mit einer anderen Version hätte er es leichter gehabt!

Oscar Pistorius: five questions Judge Masipa must consider

Has Pistorius ‘tailored’ his testimony?

The prosecution has accused Pistorius of “tailoring” his evidence, although the athlete argued that these were genuine mistakes. For example, in his bail statement, Pistorius said he “went onto the balcony” to retrieve a fan but in court he said he did not go fully out onto the balcony. He initially said he “whispered” to Steenkamp to get down and call the police, but later denied whispering and said he spoke in a “low tone”. The judge will have to decide if these are reasonable mistakes to make or whether, as prosecutor Gerrie Nel argues, Pistorius was “thinking of something that never happened” and struggling to “keep up with an untruth”.

Is Pistorius’s version of events even possible?

The athlete struggled to explain why some parts of his testimony contradicted the state’s evidence. Pathologist Gert Saayman said Steenkamp had eaten about two hours before her death, around the time a neighbour heard an argument at the house. Pistorius, who claimed they were both asleep at that time, admitted: “I don't have an explanation for it.” The judge will have to decide if it is possible that Steenkamp got out of bed and went to the toilet without Pistorius hearing or seeing her go, while Nel says the most "improbable" part of the athlete’s story is that Steenkamp never uttered a word from the toilet before she was shot.

How reliable is the police evidence?

The prosecution has used police crime scene photographs to suggest that Pistorius’s story is a lie. If his duvet was on the bedroom floor, as it is in one photograph, the athlete would struggle to convince the court he thought Steenkamp was in bed. The prosecution claims he could not have later ran out onto the balcony for help as there is a fan in the way and that the curtains are open in his room, despite Pistorius claiming he had closed them before he heard a noise in the bathroom. However, the defence has proven that the police moved items around in the house that night and Pistorius insists that his bedroom was not how he left it.

Is Pistorius's emotional state an act?

The Paralympian has wept, retched and held his head in his hands for much of the trial, causing the court to adjourn on more than one occasion. Asked by the prosecution why he was being so emotional, he said he was “traumatised” by the night when he lost the person that he cared about. Masipa will have to consider Nel’s accusation that the athlete was using his emotions to dodge difficult questions during the cross-examination, although the judge herself pointed out: “He has been emotional throughout.”

If Pistorius believed Steenkamp was an intruder, did he act reasonably?

Even if the judge believes that Pistorius thought Steenkamp was an intruder, he could still face a murder conviction. Pistorius insists that he fired the gun “without thinking” but the state’s ballistics evidence suggests there was a pause in between some of the shots. Pistorius initially told the court he had “aimed” at the bathroom door, but later said he did not. The judge will have to decide if Pistorius: planned to kill before firing the gun, which could amount to premeditated murder; intended to kill as he fired the shots, which could amount to murder; or whether he acted negligently, which could amount to culpable homicide.


Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/oscar-pistorius/53387/oscar-pistorius-trial-reeva-had-no-time-scream#ixzz2zF5mZjyF (Archiv-Version vom 19.04.2014)

CosmicQueen schrieb: denn wer will das denn überprüfen

KlaraFall schrieb:he athlete struggled to explain why some parts of his testimony contradicted the state’s evidence. Pathologist Gert Saayman said Steenkamp had eaten about two hours before her death, around the time a neighbour heard an argument at the house. Pistorius, who claimed they were both asleep at that time, admitted: “I don't have an explanation for it.

Mauberzaus schrieb:Die Waffe ist ungesichert im Badezimmer gefunden worden. Es ist für ihn günstiger zu behaupten, er habe sie noch mit ins Schlafzimmer genommen, sonst sieht das nach einer "Mission accomplished" aus, gerade nach vier Schüssen, nach dem letzten tödlichen Kopfschuss hört er auf zu schiessen und die Angst vor den intrudern ist wie weggeblasen, also lässt er die Waffe kurz danach im Badezimmer fallen....

und wenn es DOCH zu überprüfen ist, wie steht er DANN da
denk mal nach, warum er es so nicht macht
wusste er denn so genau, was alles zu überpüfen war und ist...