Wo steht das? Belege bitte!CosmicQueen schrieb:Behauptungen müssen IMMER belegt werden,
.....ganz schlicht und ergreifend: FALSCH !!! Jeder kann seine Meinung sagen und diese als solche deklarieren......oder siehst du das tatsächlich anders ???
@infinitas hat sich richtig erinnert, das konnte nicht nur @Interested bestätigen, sondern auch meine Wenigkeit.
Sehe ich genauso, denn die linke Ecke ist mir genauso wenig entgangen wie das Fenster, das ich zunächst für viel kleiner hielt, wo sie aber immer noch mit einem "Beinbruch" hätte davonkommen können.infinitas schrieb:Nach dem ersten Schuss hatte sie dazu leider keine Gelegenheit mehr.
MMn hat Reeva damit nicht gerechnet. Es ist eine sache, schreiend und tobend auf Dinge einzuschlagen. Die Waffe dann tatsächlich holen und jemanden der keine Chance auf Flucht oder
Verteidigung hat, zu erschießen, eine ganz andere. Sie wusste einfach nicht, zu was er fähig ist.
In the program "Oscar Pistorius: Shots in the Dark" reporters Troy Roberts, Peter Van Sant, and Debora Patta put together a documentary showing two very compelling sides in the Oscar Pistorius trial for the killing of Reeva Steenkamp. Interviews with friends of the victim, friends of the defendant, and legal experts on high profile cases such as the George Zimmerman trial were questioned on their speculations over the course of events that transpired on Valentine's Day 2013 in the home of Oscar Pistorius.
One thing remains very clear after the "48 Hrs" airing. There are a lot of varying theories on whether or not premeditation is a factor in the case of Oscar Pistorius.
A close friend of the defendant was one of the first to speak on Oscar's behalf. Mike Azzie is described as a "family friend" and a "father figure" to Oscar Pistorius and has known him since he was very young. He had nothing but good things to say about Pistorius reports the New York Daily News.
“Oscar is not a cold-blooded murderer. What happened was a tragedy. No one will ever know what was the cause of it or how it happened. And he feels the family’s pain. He genuinely feels pain for her family.”
The case of Oscar Pistorius has been compared to many other high profile murder trials, including the Jodi Arias trial. CBS drew several comparisons between the Oscar Pistorius trial and another high profile murder trial, that of the O.J. Simpson case. Both cases center around a glorified and decorated athlete, both cases center around partner violence, and both cases are the first in their country to have live streaming inside the courtroom. These were the similarities drawn between the O.J. Simpson case and the Oscar Pistorius case by "48 Hrs" on June 16.
Another key comparison drawn between the two cases is the factor of premeditation. In order to be convicted of first degree murder, premeditation must be shown. In the trial of Jodi Arias, it was very easy to illustrate this for prosecutor Juan Martinez. In the O.J. Simpson case, for Marcia Clark, not so much. The big question facing Judge Masipa in the Oscar Pistorius case is, has the prosecution met their burden in showing premeditation?
Susan Zirinsky the executive producer for "48 Hrs" told the New York Daily News that,
“Unlike the O.J. case, it’s not a matter of if Pistorius did it. It’s a matter of why.”
In that answer of why will be the answer of premeditation. "Why" Oscar Pistorius shot his girlfriend to death remains to be seen, the answer to that question will also answer the question about premeditation.
Did he do it because they had a fight and he was trying to scare her? Did he do it because he thought it was an intruder like he stated in his first defense? Or like he stated in his next story when he changed that tune a bit, that it actually was a total accident?
One theory discussed by "48 Hrs" and by the prosecutor Gerrie Nel is that Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp had a fight that night. This theory suggests that the fight was so horrible, that Reeva ran into the bathroom fearful of Oscar. Moments later she would be dead.
Then there is Oscar's "I thought it was an intruder" defense, which has since changed to the 'it was an accident I didn't mean to shoot her defense'. Is there evidence to support the accident theory?
The screams that occurred on the night in question have been a point raised by both sides of the table during the trial in the point of premeditation. The ballistics evidence as well tells the story of Reeva Steenkamp's last moments. In addition, we also have the credibility of the defendant to consider. But, in all of those points there are two very different version of events.
Let's look at the screams first. The prosecution presented some very damaging evidence with many witnesses testifying to the effect that very loud, blood curdling screaming came from the Oscar Pistorius home that evening. The BBC reported that Oscar claimed that he was shouting at Reeva in the bathroom that night to call the police about the intruder he allegedly thought was in the house.
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked Oscar about that, "When you shouted at Reeva to phone the police, she was 3m away from you in the toilet, but she didn't say anything. Why would she not say anything? Oscar replied that he didn't know. To which Gerrie Nel hounded him, "She wasn't scared of an intruder. She was scared of you. Are you sure that Reeva did not scream after the first shot?
This is when Oscar began sobbing in the courtroom, and he told Nel that "At no point did Reeva shout out or scream." This statement was disputed by the prosecution.
The L.A. Times has reported that five witnesses heard several screams that evening, and that one of the witnesses testified seeing a light on in Oscar's bathroom that night. This also contradicts an earlier story by Oscar that the light was not on in the bathroom that night. Neighbor Anette Stipp said in her testimony that she had been lying awake when she heard what she thought were 3 gunshots.
"It was moments after the shots I heard a lady screaming, terrified, terrified screaming. The screaming just continued. It did not stop. I said to him [my husband], 'I’m sure it’s a family murder. Why else would a woman be screaming like that?' He said, 'Well if it is, I’m going to see if I can help, because there might be children involved.'"
ABC News has reported that the defense submitted evidence that tried to squash the screaming evidence by suggesting it was Oscar screaming that night. ABC News even said, "when it comes to memorable defenses, the 'Oscar Pistorius screams like a woman' may be right up there with the infamous 'if it doesn't fit, you must acquit' from the O.J. Simpson trial."
When Oscar tried to say in the courtroom that it was him screaming like a woman that night, laughter erupted in the courtroom in the same way that it did when O.J. tried to put the glove on during his murder trial.
Is it possible that Reeva was shot at 4 times and did not scream?
The other important question in the issue of premeditation is the ballistic evidence. Again, we have two sides to this story. Both have been previously reported on by the Toronto Relationships Examiner. The timing of the bullets could make all of the difference in the Oscar Pistorius trial.
The defense is arguing that the four bullet holes in the bathroom door happened consecutively with no space in between. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Then Oscar realized what horrible thing he had done, and beat down the locked bathroom door with a cricket bat to get to his Reeva.
Another question to consider on that vein then is, would the bathroom door have been locked if Reeva was not afraid of Oscar at the time that she entered the bathroom?
The defense in the Oscar Pistorius trial has skipped over that point. The prosecution alleges that there was a very distinct pause between the first bullet, and the remaining 3. Gerrie Nel says that the shots went like this, Bam…Bam Bam Bam. That pause in between the first and the second bullets is the moment of premeditation according to Gerrie Nel.
Lastly in the factors of premeditation is the issue of the credibility of the defendant which Gerrie Nel has done everything to squash. Pistorius has claimed that on the night in question, he thought he heard a noise of his window sliding open, followed by a door slamming shut, and these details convinced him there was an intruder in the home.
To this, Nel stated,
"Your version is a lie, you never closed that curtain in the first instance, that's why you have to come up with these things. Now we have to look for a policeman that moved the duvet to the carpet, that moved the fan back, that moved the curtaisn more open, those three things am I right? Your version is so improbable nobody would ever think it's reasonably or possibly true. You're trying but it's not working."
The definition of pre-meditation is thinking about something before doing it. Juan Martinez has illustrated this in the case of the State of Arizona versus Jodi Arias in the Jodi Arias trial. In his closing arguments he said, "Even though the premeditation statute only requires a certain period of time. It doesn't require days, it doesn't require planning, it requires thinking."
With this argument, Juan Martinez brilliantly showed that Jodi Arias was guilty of first degree murder three times in one night.
What was Oscar Pistorius thinking when he shot through that bathroom door? Do you believe Reeva did not scream the night she was killed? Why was the bathroom door locked? Was there, or was there not, a pause between those first and second bullets? What do you think?
http://www.examiner.com/article/oscar-pistorius-trial-3-stages-of-premeditation-jodi-arias-closing-arguments
Helena Nickerson I don't know what the Pistorius family and the friends hope to achieve by enlisting the media to screen a character reference for Oscar Pistorius. This Azzie character tries to tell the world, "Oscar loved Reeva, he really loved her" Note, too, how he says that line in a tearful, quivering voice just like OP was told to sound convincing. Why the hell would Mike Azzie become emotional when he says that line? He loved Reeva. Yea, right! If he loved Reeva she would be alive today. He would not have murdered her in cold blood. He only loves himself, his ego and his image to the outside world- that's why he silenced Reeva, so she could never tell the world what a monster he is. What really irks me is whenever they speak they always tell the world, "We are strong Christians, we pray all the time". What is the point? The fact that you're Christian and pray all the time do not in anyway suggest that you have not committed a crime. It is a well known fact that when criminals are in deep trouble they reach for the Bible. During this murder trial OP has been using the words, Jesus and God as often as he could, "I prayed to God to let Reeva live, prayed to God to save her life." Charming! After he shot her 4 times that is a very fitting prayer, I'm sure! Before OP was up for murder and he was wooing the media, you never heard him attributing any of his success to God. It was always, me, me and I, I. Just as easily as he pulled the trigger 4 times, he had become this "devout Christian". Like OP, his family and friends constantly push the Christian line lately, as if that should exonerate OP from any liability in the execution of Reeva. See Mike Azzie, in this sneak preview of the ultimate PR stunt, posing in front of the fat candle surrounded by angels, saying, "We pray that Oscar may have life". How arrogant! How paltry! How narcissistic! Knowing that a woman was murdered at the filthy hands of the person they now try to protect. The problem with this band of Pistorius thugs is this: They are so used to bullshitting that they even believe they can bullshit God. If you are really strong Christians as you profess, do the Christian thing. 1. Confess (Tell the truth) 2. Repent (Have remorse) 3. Purge yourself (ask for forgiveness). This is THE ONLY way you can turn to God. What the Pistorius brigade seem to believe is the following: Oscar Pistorius can commit a heinous crime and then they can instruct God, saying "Now that Oscar's done this, we pray, that You clean up his mess and let him go free to enjoy his life" Well, I've got news for you and it is NOT good. You can manipulate the evidence, the witnesses, the media, the crime scene, the PR team and whoever else. But you CANNOT manipulate God- forget it! Man up and let this world's beautiful Reeva Rest In Peace. At least afford her mom and dad some restoration . You don't care two hoots about the life taken or the further toll it takes on the grief-stricken Steenkamp family. The fact that Reeva's father has already suffered two strokes as a result of Oscar's doing means nothing to you. You don't care how many lives are lost.. as long as you can get a cold-blooded murderer off the charge. As long as Oscar Pistorius survives. You can burn as many fat candles as you like, Mike Azzie. You can even burn up a whole bloody forest. THE TRUTH WILL ALWAYS BE THERE AND WILL TRIUMPH IN THE END!
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/635743729837533?comment_id=636986346379938&offset=0&total_comments=51
Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand!
Und es ist hier schon oft genug vorgekommen, das Falschinfos, die hier gepostet wurden von zig Usern übernommenen wurden und dann als Fakt gelten sollen @KlaraFall @infinitas ;)
Nein, man kann durchaus eine Tatsache in Frageform formulieren um auf etwas aufmerksam machen zu wollen, zu erinnern und neu zu hinterfragen. Eine Form der Rhetorik und hat nichts mit Unsicherheit zu tun.
Danke für den link! Hatte noch keine Gelegenheit mir das anzuschauen, muss ich noch nachholen, aber die Reaktionen im Netz gehen mit deiner Meinung konform.fortylicks schrieb:Diese Aussagen von Azzie und anderen Spezis oder Familienangehörigen
haben alle nichts mit der Tat zu tun......einfach Stimmungsmache!
