So sehe ich es auch.Pupupu schrieb:seiner Freilassung auf Kaution schon wieder ordentlich feiern, lachte, flirtete und langte den Mädels an den Arsch.
und das stimmt auch nicht.......aber man kann es natürlich so einseitig und übertrieben darstellen ;)
Wurde aber in der Presse so dargestellt und angenommen nur die Hälfte davon trifft zu, dann muss man sich schon fragen, hatte Op in dem Jahr keine anderen Sorgen, ich für mich kann ganz klar behaupten in seiner Situation hätte ich an solch einem Leben nicht teilnehmen können und wollen.
Das macht es dann ja auch einigermaßen schwer, den Fall von mehreren Perspektiven aus zu betrachen ... ;-)Luminarah schrieb:Jetzt will er ungeschoren davon kommen. Diese ganze Heulerei und Würgerei ,der Typ ist sowas von erbärmlich ,aber das ist meine persönliche Meinung.
Daß er auch anders kann, hat man ja heute zum ersten Mal "anfühlen" können: "Get the f... out of my house"fleetwood schrieb:ist er wirklich so abgewichst,das er mit seiner stimme (die eigentlich lieb,sanft und nett klingt) diese wirkung erzielen kann.sehen können wir ihn ja nicht.
Hab ich geschrieben ,das jemand des Trollens verdächtig ist ? Oder ist das deine Interpretation?
Ich stimme Dir da komplett zu. Das war eine sehr bezeichnende Szene.sterntaucher schrieb:Daß er auch anders kann, hat man ja heute zum ersten Mal "anfühlen" können: "Get the f... out of my house"
Daß der Satz so gefallen ist, an Reeva gerichtet, durchaus vorstellbar.
Da hat ihn Nel so richtig in die "Szene" eingeführt, das klang erschreckend authentisch.
Ich hab da keine Angst vor Einbrechern raus gehört, das hörte sich eher nach Wut und Hass an.
Meine Meinung.
na so etwas, da stehts,
Ich habe geschrieben ,das wenn man glaubhaft ist ,auch über den Verdacht der reinen Trollerei erhaben ist. Denn wenn man grob mit zweierlei Mass misst ,hat das wenig mit Diskussion zu tun.
was bedeutet, irgendjemand wird des REINEN Trollens verdächtigt.......wer?
Die Tat war nicht gestern sondern vor über einem Jahr .
Here is todays Summary courtesy of the telegraph. *c*
Reeva Steenkamp was about to leave Oscar Pistorius's house because of an argument when she was shot dead, the prosecutor in the case alleged on Monday, as he accused the athlete of changing testimony as the trial progressed.
Gerrie Nel said the discovery of the model's jeans on the floor of the bedroom indicated she had been preparing to get dressed when she was killed, a claim the athlete denied.
Mr Nel asked Pistorius if he agreed that Steenkamp was a “neat and tidy” person – which he did. Mr Nel asked why then were the model’s jeans strewn on the floor after she had done her yoga exercises, brushed her teeth and got into bed.
“It is the state's case that the jeans were on the floor as Reeva wanted to leave that night, that's why the jeans are on the floor,” he said. “You had had an argument."
Pistorius also denied he had shouted at his girlfriend before shooting at the lavatory door four times on Valentine's Day last year.
The athlete broke down in tears re-enacting the moment for the judge after he was asked by Mr Nel: “What did you shout as you went down the corridor?”
The athlete paused, then screamed, his voice rising in pitch: “I screamed and said get the ---- out of my house. GET THE ---- OUT OF MY HOUSE!"
The judge called an adjournment as Pistorius's siblings Carl and Aimee once again rushed over to comfort him.
After the adjournment, Mr Nel suggested to Pistorius the reason why he had become emotional. "Isn't it because that's exactly what you shouted at Reeva?" he asked. Pistorius said no.
In a bruising day for the athlete, Mr Nel repeatedly punched holes in the athlete’s account, causing him to break down several times as he was questioned about shooting Steenkamp.
Mr Nel also pointed out that Pistorius was relying on two different defences: “putative self-defence”, that he fired at a perceived intruder intentionally, and “involuntary action”, that he shot without intention as a reflex.
Pistorius has told the court that he was frightened, imagined there was an intruder and armed himself to protect his girlfriend’s and his own life. He has also said that he fired “accidentally” and without thinking at the locked lavatory door.
Mr Nel told the athlete three times that certain points of evidence which didn’t fit with his account were “devastating”.
Mr Nel said it was “devastating” for the athlete’s account that a state pathologist said the contents of her stomach suggested she ate just two or three hours before her death. Pistorius has told the court that the couple ate at 7pm, and Steenkamp is known to have died eight hours later.
Pistorius pointed to the defence pathologist’s evidence that such time stamping was a controversial and unreliable practice. Mr Nel pointed out that both experts concurred that a stomach would be empty six hours after eating.
Mr Nel said it was also “devastating” that Pistorius conceded Steenkamp might have gone downstairs and eaten again while he was asleep, because on his own account, the burglar alarm was on and would have been triggered by her leaving the room.
The third point was that Pistorius had not mentioned either in the account he gave to his bail hearing, nor in a plea explanation that was read out at the start of the trial, that he heard the lavatory door slam as he walked into the bathroom, gun cocked.
In his evidence in the witness box, he has suggested that this confirmed to him an intruder was in his house.
Pistorius said he did mention it to his lawyers before his bail hearing but Mr Nel rejected his claim, saying they would have included it.
"It's such a significant detail,” he said. “And even more devastating, it's not in your plea explanation. It's because you never said it, you invented it."
Pistorius has said repeatedly that when he fired the gun, he did so “accidentally” after hearing a noise emanating from the lavatory.
Mr Nel seized on several statements he made to suggest that the athlete was thinking clearly when he fired the shots.
Asked why he only fired four times and only at the door, rather than at the window or into the shower as a warning shot, Pistorius replied: “The bullet might have ricocheted."
Questioned as to how he held the gun as he walked down the passage towards the lavatory, Pistorius replied: "My arm was at 90 degrees. I never had an extended arm, it was close to me so if someone came round the corner, they couldn’t grab it."
Pressed as to why he didn’t shout out to the suspected intruder that he was armed, Pistorius said: “If I told someone I was armed they might act more violently or more defensively.”
“You see, you were in control the whole time,” Mr Nel told the athlete, who disagreed.
Mr Nel told him that as he approached the suspected intruder: "You wanted to shoot them."
Pistorius said no.
"What did you want to do?" Mr Nel asked. Pistorius responded: "I was terrified. I didn't have time to think."
"This is the first time you're not thinking. You thought of everything, now you're not thinking?" Mr Nel said. "'I wasn't thinking' isn't good for you Mr Pistorius. It's so reckless."
The case continues.https://www.facebook.com/OscarPistoriusCaseDiscussionAndCurrentNews/posts/306403106179185?stream_ref=10
Das ist deine Interpretation.
Das ist Aufgabe des Richters. Hier ist ein Diskussionsforum ,da kann man eine begründete Meinung äussern. Und die Einbrecherstory halte ich eben für total unglaubhaft.
