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

Ich lese seit geraumer Zeit mit und bin hinsichtlicht der Tatsache, das einige User offenbar zum Zeitpunkt des Unfalls/Mordes, am Ort des Geschehens zugegen waren, doch sehr ergriffen.
Indizienbeweise bergen in der Regel eine Vielzahl von Variablen und führten nicht selten zu Fehlurteilen.
Mir ist diese Hang 'em higher Mentalität zutiefst suspekt. Lynchjustiz ist scheinbar kein Relikt längst vergangener, dunkler Zeiten, sondern auch heute noch präsent und greifbar. Wenn auch subtiler, dem intellektuellen Niveau der Lyncher angemessen.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mQvO7fZrH8

@CosmicQueen

CosmicQueen schrieb:Und es geht hier um Gerechtigkeit? Ich lach mich tot, wohl eher geht es vielen um Vorverurteilung, denn keiner weiß ganz genau ob O.Ps Version nicht einfach die Wahrheit ist, das Urteil hier ist doch schon längst gefällt, da brauch es keinen Prozess mehr.

Verurteilt wird doch O.P sowieso, denn er hat einen Menschen getötet, er gibt es zu, nur eben war es aus seiner Sicht ein schreckliches Unglück, Menschen sind halt nicht fehlerlos, sie irren sich, sie treffen Fehlentscheidungen etc.pp. Für mich soll ein Mensch auch für das bestraft werden, was er auch tatsächlich getan hat und nicht weil man denkt, es muss so gewesen sein und deshalb kann es nur ein Urteil geben. DAS ist für mich gewissenlos und deshalb bin ich froh das es Gesetze gibt, die zumindest versuchen ein gerechtes Urteil zu fällen, objektiv und nicht weil die Masse meint, sie müsse Henker spielen...

Sehr gut Cosmic Queen. Das war gestern für mich ein wohltuender Beitrag, den ich zu 100% so unterschreiben kann. Genau darum geht´s! Und nicht zu vergessen: es fehlt nach wie vor ein Motiv.

@GilesCorey

Ich lese seit geraumer Zeit mit und bin hinsichtlicht der Tatsache, das einige User offenbar zum Zeitpunkt des Unfalls/Mordes, am Ort des Geschehens zugegen waren, doch sehr ergriffen.
Ja, da muss echt was los gewesen sein.


Indizienbeweise bergen in der Regel eine Vielzahl von Variablen und führten nicht selten zu Fehlurteilen.
So ist es. Und manch ein offenbar doch klarer Fall, drehte sich plötzlich

Mir ist diese Hang 'em higher Mentalität zutiefst suspekt. Lynchjustiz ist scheinbar kein Relikt längst vergangener, dunkler Zeiten, sondern auch heute noch präsent und greifbar. Wenn auch subtiler, dem intellektuellen Niveau der Lyncher angemessen

Nun, ich habe zum Punkt Lynchjustiz auch so meine Meinung. Nicht zuletzt wird das Ganze durch die Medien angeheizt, die mit den puren Tatsachen natürlich keine Auflagen schaffen.
Den medialen Umgang mit dem Fall Christian Wulff fand ich schon sehr bedenklich.
Und was ist rausgekommen? Freispruch!
Weiter der Fall Hoeneß. Die hinterzogene Steuersumme wurde von Stunde zu Stunde höher.
Hier gibt es vollumfänglich ein Geständnis. Aber laut der zahlreichen Fans und Fürsprecher ist Hr. Hoeneß ein so guter Mensch, der nicht inhaftiert werden darf, weil er ja soviel Gutes getan hat.
Ja, hat Ozzy auch!

@funnyfee

Möglicherweise

und das ist in diesem Fall der Dreh -und Angelpunkt. Spekulation.
Zumindest in der Diskussion um Unschuld oder Schuld.

Möglicherweise waren Ethel und Julius Rosenberg gar keine Staatsfeinde?

Ermordet, im Namen des Volkes, wurden sie trotzdem.

@Käsepizza

Interessante Version, hier habe ich auch noch ein lesenswertes Posting.

The state's burden is to prove all the elements of the offense (murder) beyond a reasonable doubt and to disprove the defense (putative self defense). It is my understanding of SA law that the state does not necessarily have to prove their version. So even if there is doubt regarding certain elements of the state's version, if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that OP committed the offense, he should be found guilty.

For OP to be able to claim putative self defense, my understanding of SA's law is that the threat of death or great bodily harm must feel so real that any other reasonable person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could only be avoided by using the same deadly force OP used. The threat must also be imminent, meaning there could be no other course of action (like escaping) to avoid the situation. SA's constitution guarantees the right to life. A person can legally take the life of another to save their own, but there must be no other alternative available. Killing should be the last and only resort.

My opinion regarding the defense and the charges:

Not Putative Self Defense
1. No evidence to support rational fear that an intruder would enter his highly secure gated community and/or his highly secure home. Any and all unsecured parts of his home were due to OP's neglect to secure them and indicate that he wasn't fearful of leaving them unsecured.
2. He approached the danger. He had the option to escape via his bedroom door, but he admitted under cross that he wanted to confront the intruder(s). "That's my personality. That's how I am."
3. He made no attempt to ensure it wasn't his guest in the toilet. A reasonable person would first assume it was the houseguest, not an intruder.
4. He demanded that the intruder get out of his house, but did not allow the intruder to do so. He just started firing.
5. He passed the firearm competency test -- he knew it was illegal to fire at an unseen target.

Premeditated
Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. OP had sufficient time to reflect and think about what he was about to do before doing it. This was not a quick reaction... He bent down to get his 9mm pistol loaded with black talon bullets from under the bed, removed the holster, released the safety mechanism, slowly walked down the passage, entered the bathroom, and aimed at the door. Every step was under his control.

Murder
1. Ear witness testimony from credible witnesses that there was arguing between a man and a woman.
2. He shot to kill. He fired four rounds of black talon bullets into a small toilet cubicle. He made a conscious and deliberate decision to pull the trigger four separate times.
3. The shots were fired with accuracy and precision.
4. Expert testimony that the victim screamed after at least the first shot. The scream indicated that there was no longer a threat and/or it was mistaken identity of the person behind the door, but he kept firing.
5. He called a friend first, not netcare.

In the interest of justice, OP must be found guilty of premeditated murder.


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242350&page=2

@GilesCorey

GilesCorey schrieb:Möglicherweise waren Ethel und Julius Rosenberg gar keine Staatsfeinde?

Ermordet, im Namen des Volkes, wurden sie trotzdem.

Hmm...da haste aber tief in die Kiste gegriffen. Alle durften ja in den letzten 60 Jahren etwas lernen.

Par exemple

In the interest of justice, OP must be found guilty of premeditated murder.

@GilesCorey

KlaraFall schrieb:In the interest of justice, OP must be found guilty of premeditated murder.

NÖ

Schon,
insbesondere für jene die sich vorverurteilend selbstgerecht aus dem Fenster lehnen.
Spekulation bleibt Spekulation. Ist emotional bedingt der Wahrheitsfindung nicht dienlich.

@Tussinelda
@KlaraFall


Hier sieht man ganz toll, wie die Türen spiegeln, in der Nacht, da muß ich @Tussinelda Recht geben, und fällt es mir auch noch so schwer (man bedenke, welch mit Vorurteilen behafteter Mensch ich doch bin)

Hier das Foto: http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/8.png?w=450&h=266

Liebe TussiNelda, ja, Glas kann spiegeln tagsüber, wenn es drinnen dunkler ist als draußen, sieht man überall, sogar Laptop spiegelt bei grellem Licht.

Aber man sieht auf folgendem Foto trotz Spiegelung (am Tag), sogar das Geländer des Treppenaufgangs, schau mal durch das Glas auf der linken Seite. (von vorn gesehen links :-)
oder schau auf das Bild drauf, weil durchschauen kann man ja nicht, ist ja ein Bild :-)

http://www.iol.co.za/polopoly_fs/iol-new-spic-oscar-in-court-8-1.1471224!/image/4174126219.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_600/4174126219.jpg



Siehst das Geländer? Nicht? Liegts vielleicht an der "rosaroten" Brille ?(in deinem Falle "lila"?)

@GilesCorey

Man muss hier aber differenzieren zwischen den Medien und den (fundierten) Meinungen der User hier im Forum. Die Medien wollen Auflage und Aufmerksamkeit und haben eine erhöhte Verantwortung, da auch viele nicht gut informierte Leute sich aufgrund der Meldungen eine (ggf. falsche) Meinung bilden können.
Hier in unserem eher geschlossenen Forum sind sehr viele sehr gut informiert, verfolgen den Fall und den Prozess live und bilden sich im Laufe der Zeit eine Meinung dazu.

Weiterhin haben Rechtsstaaten zwar eine Gewaltenteilung und ein unabhängiges Justizsystem (im Idealfall), das heißt aber nicht, dass Menschen aufhören sollen zu denken und sich selbst eine Meinung zu bilden.
Zumindest solange das hier in argumentativer und geordneter Form geschieht und keiner mit Hetzplakaten durch die Straßen rennt.
Das Mitdenken und die eigene Meinung ist sogar zwingend notwendig, damit solche Dinge wie Rosenberg oder noch schlimmere Dinge im "Namen des Volkes" eben nicht mehr geschehen.

Das Diskutieren hier im Forum ist auch keine Vorverurteilung, da keine Konsequenzen für OP daraus resultieren und vor allem, weil hier argumentiert wird und jeder User die Möglichkeit hat, seine Meinung noch zu ändern.

Hatte leider die Quelle vergessen anzugeben!
Also noch einmal, eine sehr interessante Meinung zum möglichen Ablauf des Abends bzw. der Tat.

Quelle: http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241098&page=3

My theory isn't just a theory about what happened in those final moments, it's also partially an examination of what was going on with the two of them that day. So bear with me, this may be a little lengthy.

There are many red flags to me that things were not normal that day.

1. OP testified that he left the house early that morning to beat the traffic for his financial meeting. He said he got there an hour early and met a friend for coffee. He was very vague about it and did not say with whom he met. My hinky meter went up on this one. My speculation, that was a planned coffee date. I don't know if it was with another woman, or if it was a business or family matter that he wanted to keep hidden from Reeva. Not sure. But I was left with that sneaking feeling that he left early to meet someone.

2. He then testified that he was supposed to meet up with Reeva in Johannesburg that afternoon after his meeting but for some reason, she decided to stay in Pretoria and get stuff done at his house and he ended up making plans with Justin Devaris to have dinner with the guys.

3. We know that his financial meeting didn't go well. Reeva sent him consoling messages and suggested he spend the night with family. This was odd to me. I get the sense that his "hurdles" weren't just about money. The fact that she suggested he spend the night with his siblings, Carl or Aimee, tells me that something else was going on. From her texts, I also got the sense that she wanted to go home that night, not stay at his place.

4. After looking at his afternoon/evening phones calls again, I see that he was talking to his Dad, Henke, a few times on the phone that night. One call was at 17:56:51 (307 seconds) and the other call was at 18:47:59 (56 seconds). Could this also be an indication that part of his problems that day were family related?

5. OP testified that he and Reeva exchanged more messages later in the day and he ultimately decided to cancel his guy's dinner and she declined Samantha G's invitation to hang out and watch a movie. Again, I didn't feel like I was getting the whole story from OP on the stand. His accounting of their plans that night felt very made up. I really get the sense that one of them felt forced to be at Oscar's that night, but I can't figure out if that was Reeva or if it was Oscar.

6. He testified that he got home about 15 minutes after Reeva and he started to say that he parked his car in the driveway, went to the front door and it was locked and the dogs were running around the house... and the Judge cut him off. She told him to slow down, he was going too fast. When he picks up with the story, he skips that part and just says that Reeva was in the kitchen cooking dinner. The way he was beginning that sentence gave me the impression that he was a little ticked off when he got to the house.

7. He says they chatted for a few minutes and then he disappears upstairs for pretty much an hour. His accounting of this hour, I think we can all agree, was bizarre. We know from the iPad evidence that porn was watched on his iPad but OP refused to admit to that. I think the hour by himself upstairs is indicative of somebody who had a crappy day and needed space.

8. They then have dinner and OP testified that he helped her with her modeling contract paperwork. He made changes in areas that he thought were not good for Reeva. I can see this potentially turning in to an argument if the jealousy/control factor was kicking in, especially if he was already in a sour mood. He said that typically they watch TV downstairs after dinner but this night they were both very tired so they skipped that. Again - red flag that all was not "normal" that night.

9. They go upstairs and he describes very mundane things such as brushing teeth, drinking tea, talking about cars. They very well could have been bickering at this point or maybe they had sex and he didn't want to testify to that, who knows. But the fact that his details of several hours spent together with Reeva that night were extraordinarily boring and vague, tells me that we didn't get nearly the full story.

10. We do know that he chatted with his cousin on the phone. OP is a master at keeping up appearances, so he could have seemed normal to his cousin that night, even if he did have a bad day. Reeva could have very well done some exercises, maybe to blow off steam.

11. Gina Myers has spoken in interviews about how the text she got from Reeva that night was not her norm. Typically she was very bubbly and always told her she loved her, but apparently the text was very direct that night. We have not seen this text, nor has Gina testified, so this is really just a side note to add in to again illustrate the not "normal" tone of that night.

12. Reeva had food in her stomach which had to have been consumed sooner than the 8 hours that OP testified about on the stand. It is my belief that they never went to bed that night. I think it was a mix of arguing, cooling off, arguing, cooling off, etc. Just an overall tense night.

13. Around the 2am hour, things escalated. Mrs. van der Mewre testified that it started at exactly 1:56am. That means she looked at her clock when it woke her. She heard a loud, angry female voice intermittently for an hour. At one point she got up out of bed to see if she could see anything from her balcony, but she could not. She had to put a pillow over her head to go back to sleep. For anybody who has been awakened late at night by loud arguing voices, which I have, it is very annoying. I think she was speaking truthfully about what she heard. She seemed very upset about it on the stand. Surely if she didn't have to be there, she would not have been. Her husband identified crying after the fact as being Oscar. It was "crying" not blood-curdling screaming. He likely heard Oscar after the final shots. The fact that the arguing and the crying were coming from the same direction/location tells me that she heard arguing in that house an hour prior to the gunfire.

14. I think the real heated arguing started elsewhere than the bathroom. I think they were either in one of the lounge areas or in the bedroom. I think the bedroom door was closed by Reeva, possibly even slammed in Oscar's face and he flipped out. She wanted to leave. Somehow the disheveled jeans are tied in to her trying to leave in a hurry. I do not buy for a second that the broken bedroom door happened from him kicking it. That is one heck of a crack in the bottom of the door. His prosthetic leg would have been pretty decently shattered, I think. It would have taken him 3 seconds to lean down and undo the floor/top latches to open that door. No need to kick it whatsoever. But it's not just the bottom crack that we see. There are two good "whack" marks right near the door handle and what appears to be two separate pellet marks. One hole that has an entrance and exit, and the other appears to be a grazing mark. I think the first set of bangs very well could have been the airgun shooting at the bedroom door. I also think he may have used the metal baseball bat on the door, but don't think anybody would have heard that.

15. The Stipps testified that the screams escalated and climaxed, and the sounds got closer. I think this was Reeva running to the bathroom. She very well may have had the cricket bat in her hand for defense.

16. I think Reeva also had her phone on her (to call police) and either Oscar caught up to her and whacked it away from her, or she dropped it, leaving it on the ground with the cover knocked off. This would have really pissed him off.

17. Reeva scrambles in to the toilet room and quickly locks the door.

18. Oscar first uses the cricket bat to whack the metal plate, in anger. He also takes a whack at the door. Reeva's screams are escalating.

19. This is when the Stipps and Burger/Johnson heard the intermingled voices. Reeva screaming for help and Oscar either mocking her cries for help or maybe even pleading with her to please come out. Reeva is facing the door, literally pleading for him to stop and for help to come. I think they were both desperate at this point.

20. Oscar has had it. He's totally in a rage. He retreats to the bedroom and gets his gun. Whatever final words or screams were yelled, he just can't contain himself. Fires off the shots through the door. I think there is a very good chance that he could see her through the crack.

21. He likely paused for some moments there and just put the gun on the ground. Picked up the bat that was already in the bathroom and hit the door one more time (this was the lighter strike that hit right on the break, so it's very possible people didn't hear it) and started ripping the panels out. He walks in, picks her up and puts her on the bathroom floor. Goes to get his phone and calls Stander in a panic. I do think he was very upset at this point. He probably could not believe that he actually just did this and is terrified and upset. He was sobbing. Not totally knowing at this point what he's going to do. Stander tells him he must call Netcare. To comply, Oscar does that, but doesn't tell Netcare the truth about the injuries hence, no ambulance. He's in panic mode, very upset, his mind racing a mile a minute.

22. He runs downstairs, unlocks door and gets plastic bags. I think there was something he was trying to hide. I don't think he was going to get rid of the body. That one is a little too far-fetched for me. I think he wanted to get rid of other evidence, but I don't know exactly what. During this timeframe, he accidentally calls Baba (crap!) and Baba calls back. Again, he literally does not know what the h#ll to say so he blurts out "everything is fine" and hangs up. Again, crap! He knows this whole situation is BAD.

23. He carries Reeva's body out of that bathroom, he has to get her the heck out of there. He walks with her down the hallway, the last of her weak heart beats create the arterial spurt from her arm (as she was only just shot about 4-5 minutes ago.) He's up on the landing and sees everybody arriving at the door, he carries her down the stairs....

Now from my theory, you can see that he has his prosthetics on the whole time. I am currently of the belief that he was not on his stumps for the shooting. I know that this conflicts with the height of the bullet holes but Mangena did leave open the possibility that he could have been shooting from the hip, although not a probable stance.

OP stated a few times in his testimony that he was "crouching" in the bathroom as he approached the intruder. Although I don't believe the grand majority of what he says, I wonder if this may be one of those little truths that is weaved in to his story that he accidently blurted out.

Once I started thinking about that and adding it together with how mobile he seemingly was to shoot 4 times through the door, rip the door down so quickly and get her out of that room fairly quickly... it dawned on me that maybe we had it wrong. Maybe the legs really were on the whole time and his stance was not fully upright.

@Tussinelda

Tussinelda schrieb:hätte Baba also überhaupt sehen können, wie O.P. Reeva die Treppe herunterträgt? Durch die Scheiben? Und hätte man tatsächlich einen Eingangsbereich, in den jeder hineinschauen kann bis zum oberen Treppenabsatz, den ganzen Flur, somit auch Teile der Lounge?

Konnte man, sogar Teile der Lounge!!!

Hier der Beweis:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/15/article-2279060-11FB9853000005DC-771_634x422.jpg

Lass dich nicht von der Bildmitte ablenken! (Versuch es wenigstens)

Rechts hinten sieht man die Haustüre und hat auch noch Blick ins Freie durch die Haustüre hindurch!

@stanmarsh

fundierte Meinungen von Usern?
Sind und bleiben subjektive Meinungen basierend auf den wenigen Fakten ,ein tote Frau,, ein Gewehr, ein geständiger Täter.
Alles andere fiktive, subjektive Szenarien des Tathergangs.

@GilesCorey

Ja fundiert, ganz im Gegensatz zu Deinem Text. Ein Gewehr und geständiger Täter, das gibts beides nicht

@GilesCorey

GilesCorey schrieb:Alles andere fiktive, subjektive Szenarien des Tathergangs.

Da geb ich dir vollkommen recht!

OP's Darstellung der Nacht sind fiktive, subjektive Szenarien des Tathergangs.

Die Bilder und die Zeugenaussagen sind weit objektiver und realistischer als die Märchen von OP!

@stanmarsh


OP hat nicht gestanden die Frau getötet zu haben?

@sterntaucher
die aussage babas und die dazugehörige handbewegung, den schlüssel umdrehen, interpretiere ich auch wie du. man sollte sich wirklich die mühe machen, diese situation zu hinterfragen. eigentlich hätte es Nel auffallen müssen - ist es aber nicht.

vielleicht findet man aber in der aussage von OP die lösung. hat er womöglich nur einen schlüssel von außen angesteckt, damit die Standers ins haus gelangen können?

@sterntaucher


Wie können die Aussagen der Zeugen objekiver gewesen sein? Waren .die während der Tat zugegen?

@GilesCorey

GilesCorey schrieb:OP hat nicht gestanden die Frau getötet zu haben?

Ohne jetzt zu spitzfindig zu werden: OP wird von der Anklage Mord vorgeworfen, er gibt vor Gericht nicht mal zu, dass er absichtlich auf die Tür geschossen hat.

Ein geständiger Täter ist das für mich nicht.