Der Prozess Oscar Pistorius und der Tod von Reeva Steenkamp

Can anybody tell me WHICH noise did OP ( want to have ) heard that initialized his so called startles?

Bathroomwindow was not possible to open from the outside. If it was already open, then he could not have heard it open.

slamming of door was not in his bailaffi nor in his plea explantion.

The toiletdoor was locked, he therefore didn`t see it open nor the handle move.

The magazine rack did not move in advance, because Reeva was facing the door proved by ballistics of the 1. shot A .....then she fell on the rack and shots B, C and D were aimed under control in exactly this direction.

So WHAT caused him actually to get in his fightresponse?

Nothing! Because there was NO SOUND AT ALL that would prove his version.
No sound, no threat, no possible intruder means INTENTION.

Interested schrieb:Natürlich gab es kein Geräusch und die klotypischen auch nicht^^ Was also machte sie auf dem Klo und wieso schoss er - wenn nicht intent to kill?

Für uns ziemlich klar von Anfang an - und Donnerstag werden wir endlich Nel's Plädoyer hören und Roux wird es mit seinem nicht entkräften können.

KlaraFall schrieb:" A case is only as strong as the evidence and the version of your Client "

Defence Advocate Barry Roux is likely to focus his arguments on two aspects, the physical and psychological vulnerabilities of his client and the timeline of events that morning.

The defence team called several witnesses to show Pistorius’s lifetime of exposure to crime and life as a disabled person heightened his levels of anxiety.


In this state of mind, Roux is likely to argue that the athlete’s first response while believing there was an intruder in his house was reasonable.


http://ewn.co.za/2014/08/04/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Final-arguments-for-Pistorius-legal-team-ready (Archiv-Version vom 06.08.2014)

Mauberzaus schrieb:Noch ein weiterer wichtiger Punkt hinsichtlich Urteilsfindung, der ausschlaggebend sein könnte:

"I think the court will be wary of the precedent. We can't create a precedent in this country where you can go and shoot down bathroom doors because you are scared."

4 Reasons Why Oscar DID NOT KILL Reeva Steenkamp

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/4-Reasons-Why-Oscar-DID-NOT-KILL-Reeva-Steenkamp-20140717

A gorgeous, intelligent, funny, kind, generous woman is NO MORE because of OP. Her spirit is gracing the beautiful ocean she loved so much.

I’d say that, as last man standing (see smoking gun), “disabled”, “vulnerable”, “anxious”, “suicidal”, “terrified” Oscar Pistorius is way more than capable of defending himself against any “intruder”.

OP’s actions were “reasonable”? omgwtf? A “noise” is not an attack!

OP BROKE every single rule in the Gun Owner’s Bible! He was NEVER attacked, he was NEVER even remotely in danger, hellz, he NEVER even saw the “intruder”! How is shooting four shots through a locked, closed door f##king “reasonable”?!!

What makes OP so freaking special? ALL of South Africa is exposed to crime! The fact that most South Africans are not double amputees* is more than balanced out by the many advantages OP’s status and wealth confer upon him - bodyguards, guarded, gated estates and the best high and low tech security available. In fact, I’d say OP is much safer than 99% of South Africans. No one who sleeps with his freaking bedroom window OPEN is “anxious” about crime!

The laughable, bizarre part of the defense is that OP’s alleged “physical and psychological vulnerabilities” NEVER, EVER came up before he murdered Reeva Steenkamp. Where’s his documented history, the documented treatments, the documented police crime reports? There are NONE!!!

Oh, yeah, and I want to see video of OP “cowering” in fear from fireworks (how many has he seen in world competitions?), as Derman claimed. LOL Geezus, the defense is desperate.

* 100% of South Africans cannot run as fast as Oscar Pistorius (he was not able to easily flee that night? LOL), nor do the vast majority have access to a 9mm with Black Talons, nor bodyguards or a gated security estate.

WHO, really, is “disadvantaged”?
WHO, really, is “vulnerable”?

I say it is not Oscar Pistorius.

What was Oscar Pistorius thinking when he fired the gun?

"I think the court will be wary of the precedent. We can't create a precedent in this country where you can go and shoot down bathroom doors because you are scared."

- David Dadic, an attorney and criminal law expert


http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-pistorius-trial-20140804-story.html#page=1

The biggest problem Pistorius has is light and sound. He claims it was so dark he couldn't see the side of the bed Reeva was lying in (clothed of course). Yet we must believe Reeva went to the toilet in that pitch dark without turning on any lights, either her bedside light or the bathroom light where the switch was near the entrance, and was a glow in the dark kind of switch. Then she would have closed and locked the door in that pitch dark, making the toilet even darker. And all of this silently without saying a word. You've already covered the sound problem very well.

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/4-Reasons-Why-Oscar-DID-NOT-KILL-Reeva-Steenkamp-20140717

KlaraFall schrieb:Dr. Stipp hat aber Licht gesehen.

Ahnungslose schrieb:Damit, dass OP im pitch dark den Weg zum Bad gefunden habe, hat die Anklage kaum was anzufangen können. Jederman kann das in eigenen Räumen.

In der Zeit, wo RS weggeschlichen sei, war es ja gar nicht dunkel im Schlafzimmer - das Fenster war NOCH nicht dicht bedeckt. Weiter hatte sie Handy dabei. 2 sogar!???

Ahnungslose schrieb:Die Stipps haben Licht auch bei dem linken Nachbar gesehen - und das stimmte auch! Die Nhl´s haben es bestätigt!

KlaraFall schrieb:Dr. Stipp ist für mich sowieso glaubwürdig,

KlaraFall schrieb:Stümmt und OP konnte das anschliessend zwischen Bett und Balkontür sogar so gut ohne etwas umzuschmeissen oder über etwas zu stolpern. :-)