Pistorius neighbor 'heard screams, gunshots'

First topic message reminder :

A neighbour of South African athlete Oscar Pistorius has told a court in Pretoria that she was awoken by a woman's "terrible screams" in the early hours of 14 February 2013.

Mr Pistorius has pleaded not guilty at the start of his trial for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

He shot dead the 29-year-old model and reality TV star at his home, saying he mistook her for an intruder.

The neighbour, Michelle Burger, said cries for help were followed by shots.

"She screamed terribly and she yelled for help. Then I also heard a man screaming for help. Three times he yelled for help," Ms Burger told the high court in the capital.

She said she called security and then heard four gunshots.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26418086

smelly_bandit wrote:

Sassy wrote:   

No Smelly, you're the one down the paintball range   

The blokes in the Black Watch would eat you alive and spit the bones out    

Then why are the marines considered to be britains shock troops and the black watch just another infantry regiment desperately trying to avoid being cut??

It was certainly a shock to see them humiliated on television surrendering to the Iranian Navy.

The Black Watch were part of the HLI that fought the Nazi's to the last bullet and sacraficed themselves so that the BEF could escape across the Chanel to fight another day.

Know your history chap.

 

SMELLY'* wouldn't even recognise his own arse (i.e. where he keeps his 'brains'..), even if it "were served up to him on a platter" !

 :/pwn://:

* Affectionately also known as "little troll's farts upon the winds".

did they decide she could have screamed or not yet, I missed that bit...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:did they decide she could have screamed or not yet, I missed that bit...  

The neighbors heard a woman screaming.  Pistorius claimed that it was him, after he realized he had shot Re'vea.  In response to witness claims it was a female voice, he claimed he has a girlie scream.     

Donno 'bout that.  His former girlfriend took the stand and denied he has a girlie scream.

I did listen to some of the stuff from last week.

Seems he is a little bit bold with the guns.

Nothing wrong with shouting yippee ki yay on the range, but letting rip through sun-roofs and in restaurants?

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:did they decide she could have screamed or not yet, I missed that bit...  

The neighbors heard a woman screaming.  Pistorius claimed that it was him, after he realized he had shot Re'vea.  In response to witness claims it was a female voice, he claimed he has a girlie scream.     

Donno 'bout that.  His former girlfriend took the stand and denied he has a girlie scream.

thanks for that, so the idea the victim could not have screamed has been dropped has it??

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The neighbors heard a woman screaming.  Pistorius claimed that it was him, after he realized he had shot Re'vea.  In response to witness claims it was a female voice, he claimed he has a girlie scream.     

Donno 'bout that.  His former girlfriend took the stand and denied he has a girlie scream.

thanks for that, so the idea the victim could not have screamed has been dropped has it??

I haven't heard the allegation that the Rev'vea was unable to scream...at least while she was alive.  The only reports that I've heard were that a woman's screams were heard.  Those reports came from neighbors.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

thanks for that, so the idea the victim could not have screamed has been dropped has it??

I haven't heard the allegation that the victim was unable to scream.  The only reports that I've heard were that a woman's screams were heard.  Those reports came from neighbors.

Yeah, some expert says that because of the injuries to the brain, she wouldn't have been able to scream (after the gunshot).

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

thanks for that, so the idea the victim could not have screamed has been dropped has it??

I haven't heard the allegation that the victim was unable to scream.  The only reports that I've heard were that a woman's screams were heard.  Those reports came from neighbors.

Hi Quill 

He is still grasping to the credibility point of the first witness who claimed to hear screaming after the shots, as well as before, whilst not understanding if the later is shown to be wrong, the witness loses credibility, yes he is still being dim

Irn Bru wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Then why are the marines considered to be britains shock troops and the black watch just another infantry regiment desperately trying to avoid being cut??

It was certainly a shock to see them humiliated on television surrendering to the Iranian Navy.

The Black Watch were part of the HLI that fought the Nazi's to the last bullet and sacraficed themselves so that the BEF could escape across the Chanel to fight another day.

Know your history chap.

I do know my history and if it's history you want it was the commandos that pissed hitler off so much he issued a kill no capture order for them

Black watch never got that but we did

But anyway I'm hardly about to start defending to corp against some shit army regiment

There is no need

The defence are saying she couldn't have screamed - the prosecution are saying it was the fourth bullet that caused the damage.

But Pistorius' lawyer Barry Roux said: "We will debate the sequence of the bullets. We will have experts state that there was serious brain damage after the shot to the head, that it would not have been possible for her to scream at all.

"With the head shot, she would have dropped down immediately."

Ms Burger replied: "As I said [on Monday], I heard her voice just after the last shot. It could have been that it was as the last shot was fired."

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel interjected to say it was the last of four shots that struck Ms Steenkamp's head.


http://news.sky.com/story/1220546/pistorius-trial-reeva-couldnt-have-screamed

smelly_bandit wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

It was certainly a shock to see them humiliated on television surrendering to the Iranian Navy.

The Black Watch were part of the HLI that fought the Nazi's to the last bullet and sacraficed themselves so that the BEF could escape across the Chanel to fight another day.

Know your history chap.

I do know my history and if it's history you want it was the commandos that pissed hitler off so much he issued a kill no capture order for them

Black watch never got that but we did

But anyway I'm hardly about to start defending to corp against some shit army regiment

There is no need

Frigging Marines? Sailor boys!   

Oh, the tests of a percipient witness are, memory, perception and objectivity. Objectivity means absence of any bias or reason to alter what was heard or seen. Memory goes to the ability of the witness to recall. Perception means the physical ability of the witness to hear or see what is being reported on.

The limitations of perception, in this case, apply to all percipient witnesses, other that Pistorius himself (who has a severe bias, or objectivity issue). They did not see events; they only heard the argument, including a woman's screams.

The witness you mention, Didge, might have had a memory failure...particularly if his testimony doesn't comport with other witnesses. Then again, he might have been the only one who heard it right. It's a credibility issue.

He and his wife and another neighbour heard the screams, they described them very graphically and said they can't get the sound of them out of their heads.

can they know the exact sequence of the bullets??

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:can they know the exact sequence of the bullets??

That's where things typically fray at the edges.  Unless people are specifically trained, usually memory is interrupted by a traumatic event. People have a hard time remembering sequence, number and specifics like colours, etc.  Focus is interrupted.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:can they know the exact sequence of the bullets??

That's where things typically fray at the edges.  Unless people are specifically trained, usually memory is interrupted by a traumatic event.  People have a hard time remembering sequence, number and specifics like colours, etc.  Focus is interrupted.

I meant through forensics but i guess with there being fractions of seconds between each shot it would be very difficult to prove.
would entry angle of the wounds indicate where the body was and give a clue to which came first and from where..

There was an interject either today or yesterday when I was reading it, that said the last bullet was the one that hit her head, from the forensics.

It also said that the bullets were not ordinary ones and, if I remember right, 'flower headed' to inflict maximum damage.

Sassy wrote:There was an interject either today or yesterday when I was reading it, that said the last bullet was the one that hit her head, from the forensics.

It also said that the bullets were not ordinary ones and, if I remember right, 'flower headed' to inflict maximum damage.

I thought dum dum style bullets were banned...

Original Quill wrote:Oh, the tests of a percipient witness are, memory, perception and objectivity.  Objectivity means absence of any bias or reason to alter what was heard or seen.  Memory goes to the ability of the witness to recall.  Perception means the physical ability of the witness to hear or see what is being reported on.

The limitations of perception, in this case, apply to all percipient witnesses, other that Pistorius himself (who has a severe bias, or objectivity issue).  They did not see events; they only heard the argument, including a woman's screams.

The witness you mention, Didge, might have had a memory failure...particularly if his testimony doesn't comport with other witnesses.  Then again, he might have been the only one who heard it right.  It's a credibility issue.

Thanks, which was my point that the defense were trying to expose, think he is as guilty as seen mind

smelly_bandit wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

It was certainly a shock to see them humiliated on television surrendering to the Iranian Navy.

The Black Watch were part of the HLI that fought the Nazi's to the last bullet and sacraficed themselves so that the BEF could escape across the Chanel to fight another day.

Know your history chap.

I do know my history and if it's history you want it was the commandos that pissed hitler off so much he issued a kill no capture order for them

Black watch never got that but we did

But anyway I'm hardly about to start defending to corp against some shit army regiment

There is no need

What a daft perception, when it was many army units that made up Commando units before the Royal Marines formed their own in 1941, thus it was all branches of the armed forces, not just the Royal Marines

DOH

At the end of the day many units within the armed forces have gallant history, not just the Royal Marines

BigAndy9 wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

I do know my history and if it's history you want it was the commandos that pissed hitler off so much he issued a kill no capture order for them

Black watch never got that but we did

But anyway I'm hardly about to start defending to corp against some shit army regiment

There is no need

Frigging Marines?  Sailor boys!       

Percy pongo  ://?roflmao?/: 

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

I do know my history and if it's history you want it was the commandos that pissed hitler off so much he issued a kill no capture order for them

Black watch never got that but we did

But anyway I'm hardly about to start defending to corp against some shit army regiment

There is no need

What a daft perception, when it was many army units that made up Commando units before the Royal Marines formed their own in 1941, thus it was all branches of the armed forces, not just the Royal Marines

DOH

At the end of the day many units within the armed forces have gallant history, not just the Royal Marines

no shit sherlock

smelly_bandit wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Then why are the marines considered to be britains shock troops and the black watch just another infantry regiment desperately trying to avoid being cut??

It was certainly a shock to see them humiliated on television surrendering to the Iranian Navy.

The Black Watch were part of the HLI that fought the Nazi's to the last bullet and sacraficed themselves so that the BEF could escape across the Chanel to fight another day.

Know your history chap.

I do know my history and if it's history you want it was the commandos that pissed hitler off so much he issued a kill no capture order for them

Black watch never got that but we did

But anyway I'm hardly about to start defending to corp against some shit army regiment

There is no need

If you knew your history you would know that the Commando order was issued to cover more than just British Royal Marines.

And I doubt that any serving British soldier would ever say anything like you just did about a British army regiment but of course you're just a very bad example and a bit of an oddball.

In fact I don't know how you are a serving Royal Marine because you have never been away from these forums for long enough over the past several years to even be in the Terries let alone a full time soldier.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's where things typically fray at the edges.  Unless people are specifically trained, usually memory is interrupted by a traumatic event.  People have a hard time remembering sequence, number and specifics like colours, etc.  Focus is interrupted.

I meant through forensics but i guess with there being fractions of seconds between each shot it would be very difficult to prove.
would entry angle of the wounds indicate where the body was and give a clue to which came first and from where..

If you look at the pictures offered on TV, the bullets show a linear pattern off to the right, and slightly upward. They are quite low in the door, indicating to me they could have been shot by a child or Pistorius, without his prosthetic legs.

The issue of whether he had his legs on is simply a matter of credibility. He says he did; the state says he did not. What difference does it make? He admits to shooting Re'eva.

The legs make no difference, the forensics that says the head shot was the final one does, in that is shows that when the witnesses said they heard her screaming in agony, that's exactly what she was doing. If they heard it, he must have done.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:did they decide she could have screamed or not yet, I missed that bit...  

The neighbors heard a woman screaming.  Pistorius claimed that it was him, after he realized he had shot Re'vea.  In response to witness claims it was a female voice, he claimed he has a girlie scream.     

Donno 'bout that.  His former girlfriend took the stand and denied he has a girlie scream.

His former girlfriend cannot remember much about the shooting of the gun through the sunroof, cannot remember who drove her home if they in fact did or to which house she went to.

No one seems to know where they went to get Oscar either a gun or a licence........ Both were in the car at the same time. One was driving and could not remember how fast he was going.

Friends..................

A concocted prosecution so far........IMO

Sassy wrote:The legs make no difference, the forensics that says the head shot was the final one does, in that is shows that when the witnesses said they heard her screaming in agony, that's exactly what she was doing. If they heard it, he must have done.

Re'eva was hit by three of the four bullets fired. The head shot was just the final one, as well as the fatal one. She would be screaming in any event, from the first two bullets that hit her, if not before during the argument neighbors said they heard.

There is no question that he did it (killed her) in any event.

gerber wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The neighbors heard a woman screaming.  Pistorius claimed that it was him, after he realized he had shot Re'vea.  In response to witness claims it was a female voice, he claimed he has a girlie scream.     

Donno 'bout that.  His former girlfriend took the stand and denied he has a girlie scream.

His former girlfriend cannot remember much about the shooting of the gun through the sunroof, cannot remember who drove her home if they in fact did or to which house she went to.  

No one seems to know where they went to get Oscar either a gun or a licence........  Both were in the car at the same time.  One was driving and could not remember how fast he was going.

Friends..................

A concocted prosecution so far........IMO

All of that is inconsequential.  Unquestionably, he did it; he admits he did it.  It is his burden of proof to show that it was actually excusable homicide, so the ball is in his court so to speak.

The facts speak for themselves. The prosecution is completely warranted and necessary. The question is, does his excuse fly.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:The legs make no difference, the forensics that says the head shot was the final one does, in that is shows that when the witnesses said they heard her screaming in agony, that's exactly what she was doing. If they heard it, he must have done.

Re'eva was hit by three of the four bullets fired.  The head shot was just the final one, as well as the fatal one.  She would be screaming in any event, from the first two bullets that hit her, if not before during the argument neighbors said they heard.

There is no question that he did it (killed her) in any event.

He has admitted it. But the sentence will surely be determined by the verdict......

The state is portraying him as a gun slinger - weighted and probably organised to a point. His buddy went to a firm of legal experts to write his statement to ensure he was going to be in the clear for the shooting at the restaurant and then through the sunroof...... Who on earth does that.......

Original Quill wrote:

gerber wrote:

His former girlfriend cannot remember much about the shooting of the gun through the sunroof, cannot remember who drove her home if they in fact did or to which house she went to.  

No one seems to know where they went to get Oscar either a gun or a licence........  Both were in the car at the same time.  One was driving and could not remember how fast he was going.

Friends..................

A concocted prosecution so far........IMO

All of that is inconsequential.  Unquestionably, he did it.  It is his burden of proof, to show that it was excusable homicide.

That's not correct is it.  As in the UK and United States, there is no onus on Pistorius to prove his innocence. The prosecution will have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that Pistorius planned to murder her.

The state always has the ultimate burden of proof. In this case, that is fairly simple. If Pistorius' excuse doesn't fly, he is guilty.

Certain defenses are what they call affirmatives defenses and must be proven by the defendant. One is the excusable homicide (mistake) defense he is using. Since he is raising it, it is his burden to prove it.

The Court is under no obligation simply to take his word for it...in fact, it must not. Thus, all of this delving into surrounding circumstances and witnesses...by both sides as they argue back and forth.

In fact, SA may have some peculiarities about which only a SA attorney would know. All of this is subject to that caveat.

Original Quill wrote:The state always has the ultimate burden of proof.  In this case, that is fairly simple.  If Pistorius' excuse doesn't fly, he is guilty.

Certain defenses are what they call affirmatives defenses and must be proven by the defendant.  One is the excusable homicide (mistake) defense he is using.  Since he is raising it, it is his burden to prove it.

The Court is under no obligation simply to take his word for it...in fact, it must not.  Thus, all of this delving into surrounding circumstances and witnesses.

So the screams from an enclosed room to another closed room more than 170 metres away are taken as heard then.......................
And the statements have been made after the media coverage

gerber wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The state always has the ultimate burden of proof.  In this case, that is fairly simple.  If Pistorius' excuse doesn't fly, he is guilty.

Certain defenses are what they call affirmatives defenses and must be proven by the defendant.  One is the excusable homicide (mistake) defense he is using.  Since he is raising it, it is his burden to prove it.

The Court is under no obligation simply to take his word for it...in fact, it must not.  Thus, all of this delving into surrounding circumstances and witnesses.

So the screams from an enclosed room to another closed room more than 170 metres away are taken as heard then.......................

If testimony is uncontroverted, it is most likely to be taken to be true. I also mentioned perception and objectivity, and the Court can weigh these as well. So a witnesses testimony is not automatically conclusive.

gerber wrote:And the statements have been made after the media coverage.

Maybe someone should have asked for a gag order. But there is no jury, so a Court is presumed to be more savvy.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

I meant through forensics but i guess with there being fractions of seconds between each shot it would be very difficult to prove.
would entry angle of the wounds indicate where the body was and give a clue to which came first and from where..

If you look at the pictures offered on TV, the bullets show a linear pattern off to the right, and slightly upward.  They are quite low in the door, indicating to me they could have been shot by a child or Pistorius, without his prosthetic legs.

The issue of whether he had his legs on is simply a matter of credibility.  He says he did; the state says he did not.  What difference does it make?  He admits to shooting Re'eva.

if he didn't have legs on would he be able to claim he was in a more vulnerable state and that would help offset the level of his reaction to a potential threat...

PS.. there is only one regiment that matters in the British Army and that is the cherry berets...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you look at the pictures offered on TV, the bullets show a linear pattern off to the right, and slightly upward.  They are quite low in the door, indicating to me they could have been shot by a child or Pistorius, without his prosthetic legs.

The issue of whether he had his legs on is simply a matter of credibility.  He says he did; the state says he did not.  What difference does it make?  He admits to shooting Re'eva.

if he didn't have legs on would he be able to claim he was in a more vulnerable state and that would help offset the level of his reaction to a potential threat...

PS.. there is only one regiment that matters in the British Army and that is the cherry berets...  

The issue is state of mind, so I suppose you could argue that he felt vulnerable and therefore his mental state made him more anxious. But that's kinda a make weight argument. His real job is to convince the Court that he misperceived the situation in the first place.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

if he didn't have legs on would he be able to claim he was in a more vulnerable state and that would help offset the level of his reaction to a potential threat...

PS.. there is only one regiment that matters in the British Army and that is the cherry berets...  

The issue is state of mind, so I suppose you could argue that he felt vulnerable and therefore his mental state made him more anxious.  But that's kinda a make weight argument.  His real job is to convince the Court that he misperceived the situation in the first place.

it will prove nearly impossible to show his reaction was nothing less than extreme, perhaps damage control is his only option...

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The issue is state of mind, so I suppose you could argue that he felt vulnerable and therefore his mental state made him more anxious.  But that's kinda a make weight argument.  His real job is to convince the Court that he misperceived the situation in the first place.

it will prove nearly impossible to show his reaction was nothing less than extreme, perhaps damage control is his only option...

If you mean by that that his attorneys are aiming for a lessor-included offense, I would agree with you.

Basically, judgment questions are determined by what is called the "Reasonable Man" standard.  State of mind is no exception.  A triar of fact must ask, Is it reasonable for Pistorius to have believed that he was shooting an intruder, and not Re'eva, given all the facts and evidence.  If it is more reasonable than not, the door is open to his defense.

It is interesting that the State of Connecticut declined charges against a man who shot his son, believing he was an intruder.

State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky III wrote:“Under these circumstances, where Giuliano observed a disguised subject, who had been attempting to break into his sister’s home just moments earlier, aggressively advancing towards him armed with a gun or a knife, he reasonably believed that the subject presented the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm and that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend himself,” Sedensky wrote. “Finally, because of the close distance between the subject and himself, it would not have been possible for Giuliano to know whether he could retreat with complete safety to avoid shooting the subject.”  Said the State's Attorney.

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140314/connecticut-man-wont-be-prosecuted-for-fatally-shooting-son-accidentally

But the question of what is reasonable is a fact-laden question.  Look how many facts are alluded to in the above passage, before a determination is made.  Also, observe how the facts differ from the Pistorius case.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

it will prove nearly impossible to show his reaction was nothing less than extreme, perhaps damage control is his only option...

If you mean by that that his attorneys are aiming for a lessor-included offense, I would agree with you.

Basically, judgment questions are determined by what is called the "Reasonable Man" standard.  State of mind is no exception.  A triar of fact must ask, Is it reasonable for Pistorius to have believed that he was shooting an intruder, and not Re'eva, given all the facts and evidence.  If it is more reasonable than not, the door is open to his defense.

It is interesting that the State of Connecticut declined charges against a man who shot his son, believing he was an intruder.

State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky III wrote:“Under these circumstances, where Giuliano observed a disguised subject, who had been attempting to break into his sister’s home just moments earlier, aggressively advancing towards him armed with a gun or a knife, he reasonably believed that the subject presented the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm and that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend himself,” Sedensky wrote. “Finally, because of the close distance between the subject and himself, it would not have been possible for Giuliano to know whether he could retreat with complete safety to avoid shooting the subject.”  Said the State's Attorney.

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140314/connecticut-man-wont-be-prosecuted-for-fatally-shooting-son-accidentally

But the question of what is reasonable is a fact-laden question.  Look how many facts are alluded to in the above passage, before a determination is made.  Also, observe how the facts differ from the Pistorius case.

if he could in someway show he was convinced the person in there was male, large built and armed is over reaction may be somewhat lessened, how big was the window in the bathroom, how hard would it be to get up in to it... smoke and mirrors maybe...

Well, I do think he has less ground to stand on than the Connecticut man.  What would lead Pistorius to believe that the alleged intruder was "large built and armed?"  Those are the kind of facts, or lack thereof, that would affect a jury or judge dealing with a reasonableness standard.

The door looks to have been a windowless, hollow core door.  I haven't seen mention of any window into the bathroom, at least from his vantage point.  A window into a bathroom would seem to be counter-intuitive, given the need for privacy.

Haha...could have been steam and mirrors.

Original Quill wrote:Well, I do think he has less ground to stand on than the Connecticut man.  What would lead Pistorius to believe that the alleged intruder was "large built and armed?"  Those are the kind of facts, or lack thereof, that would affect a jury or judge dealing with a reasonableness standard.

The door looks to have been a windowless, hollow core door.  I haven't seen mention of any window into the bathroom, at least from his vantage point.  A window into a bathroom would seem to be counter-intuitive, given the need for privacy.

Haha...could have been steam and mirrors.

most bathrooms have windows, often opaque glass for obvious reasons, i was just sounding ideas that would make the deadly force that had obviously been applied seem applicable, obviously against a large, dangerous armed adversary would appear more reasonable, against an unarmed, female, reasonable force might be little more than restraining them.

Haha...Well, I'm not quite the cheerleader in this, one way or the other. It's just an interesting exercise in what I do for a living. I just want to see where the evidence leads.

Most bathrooms in America do not have windows. Older houses might have smaller windows leading outside, but only to allow steam to escape. With exhaust fans, builders have done away with that and completely enclosed the bathrooms.

Of course, there's still the exotic home, with windows out to the garden or overlooking the surf. After all, that's why folks in Malibu started to buy telescopes. Lol

Maria Tadeo
Thursday 10 April 2014

Oscar Pistorius was accused of lying about the events leading up to Reeva Steenkamp's death as state prosecutor Gerrie Nel launched his case in the second day of cross-examination.

For the first time, Mr Nel openly claimed in court Ms Steenkamp "ran screaming" to the bathroom after the couple had an "argument" before she was shot dead on Valentine's Day last year. The state argues Pistorius he intentionally shot and killed his girlfriend following a domestic dispute.

Continuing his ruthless questioning, the prosecutor, known as the 'pit bull', challenged the athlete's claim that the crime scene was contaminated and items, including the fan and the duvet, were moved, blocking his way to the balcony where he claims he screamed for help after shooting Ms Steenkamp.

"You see Mr Pistorius, it was never moved, that door was open when you and the deceased got into an argument, the fan was there, the duvet was there, the curtains were in that exact position, nobody moved anything," Mr Nel told the court, launching his case.

His defence claims the crime scene was contaminated and objects moved. Pistorius's defence counsel, Barry Roux, objected to Mr Nel's claim that there was an "argument" in the run-up to Ms Steenkamp's death, telling the court there is no evidence to support his claim.

Mr Nel insisted the "only reasonable inference is that the deceased ran screaming from there, that's why we heard screams, and the door was never closed", to which Pistorius immediately replied: "that's not true".


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-reeva-steenkamp-screamed-and-ran-into-the-bathroom-9251722.html

Guilty as fuck!

Tommy Monk wrote:Guilty as fuck!

+1

I'm waiting to see how it goes before making a conclusion .

lovedust wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Guilty as fuck!

+1

+ two

+ three

Sassy wrote:+ three

+100

He really got caught out today - that prosecutor was good, but I think that silly woman Judge has been taken in by him. Why they can't have a jury system I don't know.

Looks like my straight talking is appreciated after all....!