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

FGS! I'm not praising her because she is black or female, I'm praising her because out of a terrible tragedy she produced something that has made a difference to the world.

Yes she got some public funding, you do realise that MANY charities get public funding don't you?

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/charity_funding.pdf

Taxpayer funded difference to some only, mainly those of only a certain race.... all in the name of 'equality' mind.... plus her own personal financial gains.....



Have a read......


But I don't want to divert this thread.



Why so little to say about Diane abbot?



Do you think she's a twat?





In fact, she's a ait of a racist hypocrite too, come to think of it....!

Don't talk rubbish. The kids that get helped come from that area. In that area a large percentage of the population are black, coloured or asian, so obviously a high percentage are going to be of those races. It never ceases to amaze me how prejudiced people try and use things like that.

Vile views about someone who probably felt like weeping for the rest of her life but decided to honour her son by doing something worthwhile in his name.

Not that keen on Diane Abbot. However, your views on Doreen Lawrence make me want to puke.

Do you know the figures?

Well I'm sure you are dying to tell me.

Well, I'm for bed, so I'll await your reply tomorrow.

Not really, it would be nice if you already knew what you were talking about......!

Oh right, so you are saying she has made a fortune and can't substantiate it. Sounds about right. Goodnight.

Oscar Pistorius is asked why he called security after the shooting, telling them that things "were ok".

Oscar Pistorius' story about the night he shot Reeva Steenkamp is getting "more and more improbable", it has been claimed.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel began the fifth day of cross examination by questioning Pistorius about alleged inconsistencies in his story.

He focused on noises Pistorius claimed he heard in the toilet, shortly before he fired his gun, killing Reeva Steenkamp.

Mr Nel said that Pistorius' version of events was becoming "more and more improbable" as he continued to "tailor his evidence" to suit his story.

http://news.sky.com/story/1242760/oscar-pistorius-killed-reeva-on-purpose

He seems to be getting himself in more and more of a twist.

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry Sassy, slightly misunderstood, I mean in a position of power/authority.
I am not doubting her perseverance but nothing any other parent wouldn't do.
She has already made a fortune out of it, and in my opinion, she only seems to care about blacks so bit of a racist herself really, and no better than any of the white parents of victims of racist murders who don't ever get a mention. Why is she so special? Is it cos I is black? You bet it is!
I'm praising the judge because she is good and worthy of praise, not because she is black or a woman...!

Something you lefties cannot seem to grasp, you will bend over backwards to praise some for little else than BECAUSE they are black or female etc, while ignoring better performance of others because they are not, all in the name of 'equality' mind...... how very progressive.....!

How do you feel about Helen Newlove?

if he is actually found guilty of murder how long will he actually get ..?

Sassy wrote:Oscar Pistorius is asked why he called security after the shooting, telling them that things "were ok".

Oscar Pistorius' story about the night he shot Reeva Steenkamp is getting "more and more improbable", it has been claimed.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel began the fifth day of cross examination by questioning Pistorius about alleged inconsistencies in his story.

He focused on noises Pistorius claimed he heard in the toilet, shortly before he fired his gun, killing Reeva Steenkamp.

Mr Nel said that Pistorius' version of events was becoming "more and more improbable" as he continued to "tailor his evidence" to suit his story.

http://news.sky.com/story/1242760/oscar-pistorius-killed-reeva-on-purpose

He seems to be getting himself in more and more of a twist.

Having watched as much of the cross examination by Nel as I could take, I don't blame him. Nel confuses the hell out of me. He asks a question won't let OP answer and then accuses him of not listening and changing his story.

I accept the job of the prosecution is to prosecute but this guy appears to after an oscar.

What has surprised me in all the nel stage show is how little OP's defence team stood up and objected. Nel has put his opinion on record. My little knowledge of law is it must be fact.....

How on earth can nel dispute when Reeva removed her jeans and why she didn't put them straight..............

gerber wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oscar Pistorius is asked why he called security after the shooting, telling them that things "were ok".

Oscar Pistorius' story about the night he shot Reeva Steenkamp is getting "more and more improbable", it has been claimed.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel began the fifth day of cross examination by questioning Pistorius about alleged inconsistencies in his story.

He focused on noises Pistorius claimed he heard in the toilet, shortly before he fired his gun, killing Reeva Steenkamp.

Mr Nel said that Pistorius' version of events was becoming "more and more improbable" as he continued to "tailor his evidence" to suit his story.

http://news.sky.com/story/1242760/oscar-pistorius-killed-reeva-on-purpose

He seems to be getting himself in more and more of a twist.

Having watched as much of the cross examination by Nel as I could take, I don't blame him.  Nel confuses the hell out of me.  He asks a question won't let OP answer and then accuses him of not listening and changing his story.

I accept the job of the prosecution is to prosecute but this guy appears to after an oscar.

What has surprised me in all the nel stage show is how little OP's defence team stood up and objected.  Nel has put his opinion on record.  My little knowledge of law is it must be fact.....

How on earth can nel dispute when Reeva removed her jeans and why she didn't put them straight..............

Different legal system - the defence isn't allowed to interrupt the prosecution - and vice versa, which is why Pistorius got such an easy ride when his defence lawyer was making him out be a saint! Swings and roundabouts.  And it wasn't confusing, the prosecutor was constantly switching between events because liars learn their lies by heart; by not giving him time to remember which lie is which he was bound to slip up - which he did - big time!

Tess is bang on.

Tommy, I didn't mean to suggest that the judge was biased. Rather, she has to anticipate others who are biased, and may suggest the trial wasn't fair.

Keep in mind: the most important thing going on right now is the making of the record. This case will surely go to an appeal, and the appellate court must rely totally on what is in the record.

The trial judge is making sure that there is no error in the record--either way. That includes her race, and any other suggestion that the way the trial is being handled is biased. That, and the differences in procedure, are the reasons why the questioning is wide open.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/971447.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/stephen-lawrences-mother-wins-payout-over-uncaring-slur-6159038.html
"...I think the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust represents her own signifier of survival. Among other things, the trust offers bursaries to ethnic minority youngsters to study architecture, the profession her son had been training for. The last Labour government provided financial support, but since the coalition took office it has offered not a penny of Home Office money. The home secretary, Theresa May, did pay the trust a visit, and Lawrence made its financial crisis clear to her.
"I said to her, a small organisation like us, we are desperately, desperately in need of money. We had 15 full-time staff; we're now down to three, including myself. We get donations from ordinary people. But it's really hard, it's really hard. How long is it going to be able to survive? If we're still here this time next year, it will be because of a miracle."..."
Source - the observer
So this organisation was operating with 15 staff all these years, spreading its hateful anti-British message at taxpayer expense. And Doreen Lawrence has been spending all her time spending our money. This woman seems to almost never have done any productive work since she came to Britain as an immigrant from Jamaica. At the time of her son's murder, I remember reading she was an "unemployed nurse". How do you get to be an "unemployed nurse" in London? You would have to make a conscious effort. They are so desperate for NHS staff there that they import barely literate peasants from the Phillipines. But somehow "model immigrant" Doreen Lawrence couldn't find work. Then her son died and she didn't have to any more, once the Labour government got in and the cash started to flow big time so she could run her joke foundation.
Never heard of Helen Newlove....
Probably didn't get the govt campaign behind her or resulting media attention or huge pay outs.....

Tommy I think you've posted on the wrong thread lol

Yeah, I know not part of thread but Sassy wanted to challenge me about it so just wanted to reply.

Hateful anti British message. I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply.

Tommy Monk wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/971447.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/stephen-lawrences-mother-wins-payout-over-uncaring-slur-6159038.html
"...I think the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust represents her own signifier of survival. Among other things, the trust offers bursaries to ethnic minority youngsters to study architecture, the profession her son had been training for. The last Labour government provided financial support, but since the coalition took office it has offered not a penny of Home Office money. The home secretary, Theresa May, did pay the trust a visit, and Lawrence made its financial crisis clear to her.
"I said to her, a small organisation like us, we are desperately, desperately in need of money. We had 15 full-time staff; we're now down to three, including myself. We get donations from ordinary people. But it's really hard, it's really hard. How long is it going to be able to survive? If we're still here this time next year, it will be because of a miracle."..."
Source - the observer
So this organisation was operating with 15 staff all these years, spreading its hateful anti-British message at taxpayer expense. And Doreen Lawrence has been spending all her time spending our money. This woman seems to almost never have done any productive work since she came to Britain as an immigrant from Jamaica. At the time of her son's murder, I remember reading she was an "unemployed nurse". How do you get to be an "unemployed nurse" in London? You would have to make a conscious effort. They are so desperate for NHS staff there that they import barely literate peasants from the Phillipines. But somehow "model immigrant" Doreen Lawrence couldn't find work. Then her son died and she didn't have to any more, once the Labour government got in and the cash started to flow big time so she could run her joke foundation.
Never heard of Helen Newlove....
Probably didn't get the govt campaign behind her or resulting media attention or huge pay outs.....

Think again
Her fund got a million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Newlove,_Baroness_Newlove

Sassy I've proved my point.


Nems I'm not familiar with Newlove, but I am against tax payer funding for many of these so called charities that really are little more than quangos.

Tesstacious wrote:

gerber wrote:

Having watched as much of the cross examination by Nel as I could take, I don't blame him.  Nel confuses the hell out of me.  He asks a question won't let OP answer and then accuses him of not listening and changing his story.

I accept the job of the prosecution is to prosecute but this guy appears to after an oscar.

What has surprised me in all the nel stage show is how little OP's defence team stood up and objected.  Nel has put his opinion on record.  My little knowledge of law is it must be fact.....

How on earth can nel dispute when Reeva removed her jeans and why she didn't put them straight..............

Different legal system - the defence isn't allowed to interrupt the prosecution - and vice versa, which is why Pistorius got such an easy ride when his defence lawyer was making him out be a saint! Swings and roundabouts.  And it wasn't confusing, the prosecutor was constantly switching between events because liars learn their lies by heart; by not giving him time to remember which lie is which he was bound to slip up - which he did - big time!

Whow. That is why being a member of a forum such as this is brilliant.

And BTw am being genuine not sarcastic,.

Learn day by day.

Re the lie........... can run with that, one has to have the most magnificent memory and ineptitude to be able to lie.not.

Interesting two different points of view

he had not IMO learnt line by line so was he lying.......... I say probably not.

He is intelligent and that cannot be pushed aside.............

Love the different takes...........

If I was juror and I am not so can say here and now....

He shot her yes, admitted to it, intended to do so and kill her no, pre meditated not IMO if I was a juror.

And nice cushy jobs for the selected chosen ones.

gerber wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
Different legal system - the defence isn't allowed to interrupt the prosecution - and vice versa, which is why Pistorius got such an easy ride when his defence lawyer was making him out be a saint! Swings and roundabouts.  And it wasn't confusing, the prosecutor was constantly switching between events because liars learn their lies by heart; by not giving him time to remember which lie is which he was bound to slip up - which he did - big time!

Whow. That is why being a member of a forum such as this is brilliant.
And BTw am being genuine not sarcastic,.
Learn day by day.
Re the lie........... can run with that, one has to have the most magnificent memory and ineptitude to be able to lie.not.
Interesting two different points of view
he had not IMO learnt line by line so was he lying.......... I say probably not.
He is intelligent and that cannot be pushed aside.............
Love the different takes...........
If I was juror and I am not so can say here and now....
He shot her yes, admitted to it, intended to do so and kill her no, pre meditated not IMO if I was a juror.

Come off it Gerbs, he's in bed with his girlfriend, gets up to the window which is one side for a moment then hears a noise in the bathroom and automatically thinks it's an intruder rather than just his woman going for a piss, he says he then approached the bathroom by going past the bed and was shouting to her to call the police, obviously woman was in bathroom all along but didn't shout back that it was her while this was going on?

He then just started firing into the toilet although girlfriend had supposedly not replied at all, so he should have known that most likely was girlfriend in toilet.


But regardless of who he thought was in there he still fired at them intending serious harm or death.



I don't buy his story at all but he still had intent to harm whoever he thought was in there.

Tommy Monk wrote:

gerber wrote:
Whow. That is why being a member of a forum such as this is brilliant.
And BTw am being genuine not sarcastic,.
Learn day by day.
Re the lie........... can run with that, one has to have the most magnificent memory and ineptitude to be able to lie.not.
Interesting two different points of view
he had not IMO learnt line by line so was he lying.......... I say probably not.
He is intelligent and that cannot be pushed aside.............
Love the different takes...........
If I was juror and I am not so can say here and now....
He shot her yes, admitted to it, intended to do so and kill her no, pre meditated not IMO if I was a juror.

Come off it Gerbs, he's in bed with his girlfriend, gets up to the window which is one side for a moment then hears a noise in the bathroom and automatically thinks it's an intruder rather than just his woman going for a piss, he says he then approached the bathroom by going past the bed and was shouting to her to call the police, obviously woman was in bathroom all along but didn't shout back that it was her while this was going on?

He then just started firing into the toilet although girlfriend had supposedly not replied at all, so he should have known that most likely was girlfriend in toilet.


But regardless of who he thought was in there he still fired at them intending serious harm or death.



I don't buy his story at all but he still had intent to harm whoever he thought was in there.

I agree and he knew it was her

Definately, plus it has been proved that he must have known that it probably was as he hadn't established that it wasn't her.


His story is a childish attempt at an excuse.

Tommy Monk wrote:Definately, plus it has been proved that he must have known that it probably was as he hadn't established that it wasn't her.


His story is a childish attempt at an excuse.

He seems stunned that everything he says is not blindly accepted. He makes my skin crawl all that vomiting and yowling.

That is more of his childish attempts at getting off and probably fear of the inevitable looming doom.

Tommy Monk wrote:That is more of his childish attempts at getting off and probably fear of the inevitable looming doom.

I hope they lock him up for life

Nems wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Definately, plus it has been proved that he must have known that it probably was as he hadn't established that it wasn't her.


His story is a childish attempt at an excuse.

He seems stunned that everything he says is not blindly accepted.  He makes my skin crawl all that vomiting and yowling.

yep, he seems amazed that people are not believing it and there is evidence and logic against him.

veya_victaous wrote:

Nems wrote:

He seems stunned that everything he says is not blindly accepted.  He makes my skin crawl all that vomiting and yowling.

yep, he seems amazed that people are not believing it and there is evidence and logic against him.

Spoiled children get that way because they are indulged.  It's a cruel joke, really, when they confront the real world and find that they face a new form of judgment.  They expect the scales will tip for them, and find out that they are to be judged like everyone else.

I suspect that a lot of the whining and vomiting is real, brought on by the final realization that the way he has been behaving all of his life is about to come crashing down about him.  He's not going through an ordeal; he's getting a strong dose of reality, which to him is a shock.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

yep, he seems amazed that people are not believing it and there is evidence and logic against him.

Spoiled children get that way because they are indulged.  It's a cruel joke, really, when they confront the real world and find that they face a new form of judgment.  They expect the scales will tip for them, and find out that they are to be judged like everyone else.

I suspect that a lot of the whining and vomiting is real, brought on by the final realization that the way he has been behaving all of his life is about to come crashing down about him.  He's not going through an ordeal; he's getting a strong dose of reality, which to him is a shock.

He does come across as the believing his own publicity type

does anyone actually know what his maximum sentence could be if he is found guilty of her murder or his likely sentences for that matter.....

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:does anyone actually know what his maximum sentence could be if he is found guilty of her murder or his likely sentences for that matter.....

If I remember right I think they said around 15 years for culpable homicide and 25 to life for murder.

In case anyone didn't see it, here's a flashback to Day 19:



And the latest report from today's Independent:


Oscar Pistorius trial: Reeva Steenkamp standing with 'hand on the door handle' when she was shot dead

Maria Tadeo
Wednesday 16 April 2014

Reeva Steenkamp was standing with her hand "on the door handle" before Oscar Pistorius shot her dead through a locked toilet door, his murder trial heard.

Continuing his evidence, forensic expert Roger Dixon told the court Ms Steenkamp was "standing arm forward towards the door handle" when he opened fire, suggesting she may have been in the process of opening the toilet door.

The athlete's defence team, led by Barry Roux, sought to cast doubt over the prosecution's claim that Ms Steenkamp "ran screaming" to the bathroom and locked herself inside the toilet hiding from Pistorius following a domestic dispute.

Returning to the witness box, Mr Dixon, a former policeman, challenged the state's version that Ms Steenkamp was facing the door when the first of three bullets struck her in the hip. Pistorius then heard her fall back and changed aim hitting her in the arm and head.

Today, Mr Dixon told Pretoria's High Court she was standing close to the door at an angle when the first two shots struck her in the hip and arm in quick succession "like an instant amputation". His testimony appears to back the athlete's claim that he fired four shots in rapid succession.

Pistorius, back in the dock after five days of cross-examination, kept his hands in his head as Mr Dixon described the impact of the Black Talon bullets that pierced his girlfriend's body.

On Tuesday, the court also heard sound recordings of a cricket bat striking a door and of gunshots fired through a door. The defence sought to prove the sounds are similar and could be confused.

The sequence is crucial because several neighbours claimed they heard a woman screaming followed by loud noises at the start of the trial, which appears to back the prosecution's case that there was an argument before Pistorius opened fire at the door knowing Ms Steenkamp was inside.

His defence claims neighbours confused the sound of the cricket bat striking the door for gunshots and mistook the athlete's high-pitched voice calling for help for a woman screaming

In cross-examination, Mr Dixon told the court the tests had to be done a second time because the firearm that was used kept jamming, and they were recorded by a music producer who had no experience in recording gunshots.  He also admitted they used different ammunition.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-reeva-steenkamp-standing-with-hand-on-the-door-handle-when-she-was-shot-dead-9264699.html

Tesstacious wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:does anyone actually know what his maximum sentence could be if he is found guilty of her murder or his likely sentences for that matter.....

If I remember right I think they said around 15 years for culpable homicide and 25 to life for murder.

thanks Tess, I just wondered what the worse outcome could be for him...

Another bad day for Pistorius. That forensic geologist the brought in (geologist???) they brought in, is getting ripped.

So, today before his testimony he tweets for everyone to see, how unfairly he is being treated. Bad, bad form.

Looks like trial resumes on Monday, May 5th. Defense has 11 witnesses to call. Can.t imagine who.

Original Quill wrote:Another bad day for Pistorius. That forensic geologist the brought in (geologist???) they brought in, is getting ripped.
So, today before his testimony he tweets for everyone to see, how unfairly he is being treated. Bad, bad form.

What a weasel, and very manipulative.



Actions of a childish mind who is so used to playing the victim to get his own way.


What next? Will he start telling takes of how the nasty court people were laughing at his legs....?

Only testimony so far this am is a neighbor who is called to contradict another neighbor...who said he heard nothing in and of himself. Said he was sleeping and wouldn't have heard an argument.

However, he says another neighbor said after his testimony, that he meant something else. Layers of bullshite if you ask me. The guy is guilty of murder.

Original Quill wrote:Only testimony so far this am is a neighbor who is called to contradict another neighbor...who said he heard nothing in and of himself.  Said he was sleeping and wouldn't have heard an argument.

However, he says another neighbor said after his testimony, that he meant something else.  Layers of bullshite if you ask me.  The guy is guilty of murder.

I was listening to one of the defence witnesses, a girl who saw him carrying Reeva downstairs and asked her to help get her in the car to go to the hospital. Now that strikes me as strange - in that situation wouldn't a normal person ring for an ambulance stranght away, not try to carry her, bleeding and badly injured, to his car? Call me cynical but I thought he might have been trying to get her in his car and dump the body somewhere, but was seen by neighbours before he could.

She kept on about how upset he was etc - panicked more like about getting caught for murder. Another thing - she said he asked her to get towels to wrap round the injuries. Why wouldn't he have done that first - then she said she ran to his apartment and got the towels from the cupboard or something, as if she knew exactly where they were. Strange all round.

Tesstacious wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Only testimony so far this am is a neighbor who is called to contradict another neighbor...who said he heard nothing in and of himself.  Said he was sleeping and wouldn't have heard an argument.

However, he says another neighbor said after his testimony, that he meant something else.  Layers of bullshite if you ask me.  The guy is guilty of murder.

I was listening to one of the defence witnesses, a girl who saw him carrying Reeva downstairs and asked her to help get her in the car to go to the hospital.  Now that strikes me as strange - in that situation wouldn't a normal person ring for an ambulance stranght away, not try to carry her, bleeding and badly injured, to his car?  Call me cynical but I thought he might have been trying to get her in his car and dump the body somewhere, but was seen by neighbours before he could.  

She kept on about how upset he was etc - panicked more like about getting caught for murder. Another thing - she said he asked her to get towels to wrap round the injuries.  Why wouldn't he have done that first - then she said she ran to his apartment and got the towels from the cupboard or something, as if she knew exactly where they were.  Strange all round.

What do you think, said neighbour may have been doing more than mind his dogs while he was away?

Nems wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
I was listening to one of the defence witnesses, a girl who saw him carrying Reeva downstairs and asked her to help get her in the car to go to the hospital.  Now that strikes me as strange - in that situation wouldn't a normal person ring for an ambulance stranght away, not try to carry her, bleeding and badly injured, to his car?  Call me cynical but I thought he might have been trying to get her in his car and dump the body somewhere, but was seen by neighbours before he could.  

She kept on about how upset he was etc - panicked more like about getting caught for murder. Another thing - she said he asked her to get towels to wrap round the injuries.  Why wouldn't he have done that first - then she said she ran to his apartment and got the towels from the cupboard or something, as if she knew exactly where they were.  Strange all round.

What do you think, said neighbour may have been doing more than mind his dogs while he was away?

I'd say so, judging by the obvious hero worship in her statement. You'd think he was a saint.

Tesstacious wrote:

Nems wrote:

What do you think, said neighbour may have been doing more than mind his dogs while he was away?

I'd say so, judging by the obvious hero worship in her statement.  You'd think he was a saint.

That was my imression too

There's no question in my mind that the guy is upset.  The question is, what is he upset about?

He keeps up all this whining and assures M'lady that he is sooooo remorseful.  What he's remorseful about is he got caught.

Here's my theory: the guy's a spoiled child; as such, he believes he is privileged and can do things others don't dare; this time he went too far and killed someone.  Now he's in uncharted waters because there is no mums or dads to come along and make it all right.

The guy's caught in his own trap.  Of course he's sorry, M'lady.  Sorry he got himself into this shitpile.  But wipe away all the bullshite, he's guilty of murdering that poor girl.

I'd hang him by his worthless nuts.

Original Quill wrote:There's no question in my mind that the guy is upset.  The question is, what is he upset about?

He keeps up all this whining and assures M'lady that he is sooooo remorseful.  What he's remorseful about is he got caught.

Here's my theory: the guy's a spoiled child; as such, he believes he is privileged and can do things others don't dare; this time he went too far and killed someone.  Now he's in uncharted waters because there is no mums or dads to come along and make it all right.

The guy's caught in his own trap.  Of course he's sorry, M'lady.  Sorry he got himself into this shitpile.  But wipe away all the bullshite, he's guilty of murdering that poor girl.

I'd hang him by his worthless nuts.

Bob on !

Interesting Tess, trying to get rid of her body and got seen doing it so changed to trying to get her to hospital?
He must have known she was already dead by this point ...
Plus what was this other person doing near there anyway?
Heard the commotion and shots then came to see what was happening?
And quill, think you got that spot on, was about to post much the same.

Oscar Pistorius denies trying to intimidate Reeva Steenkamp's friend

Oscar Pistorius has been accused of trying to intimidate a friend of Reeva Steenkamp by turning to her in court and asking: "How can you sleep at night?"

The South African Paralympian who is on trial for Steenkamp's murder, flatly denied speaking to Kim Myers but witnesses, including a police officer, claimed they heard Pistorius as he left the dock during an adjournment. A complaint was lodged with South Africa's national prosecuting authority....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/oscar-pistorius-denies-trying-intimidate-reeva-steenkamp-friend

Well that proves it to my mind - not so much what he said, but that he blatantly lied about it to the court officials. Shows what an actor and liar he is.

He is a liar and a murderer.

Tommy Monk wrote:Interesting Tess, trying to get rid of her body and got seen doing it so changed to trying to get her to hospital?
He must have known she was already dead by this point ...
Plus what was this other person doing near there anyway?
Heard the commotion and shots then came to see what was happening?
And quill, think you got that spot on, was about to post much the same.

Pistorius has a housekeeper who sleeps in quarters off the kitchen:

Independent, ie. wrote:
A Malawian housekeeper who was at the home of Oscar Pistorius on the night Reeva Steenkamp was killed "heard nothing" and will not be called by either the state or the defence team to give evidence in the athlete's murder trial.

Frank Chiziweni is understood to have slept in the domestic quarters next to the Paralympian's kitchen on the ground floor of his home on a secure estate outside Pretoria.

He has not been called as a witness because he has nothing to say.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Interesting Tess, trying to get rid of her body and got seen doing it so changed to trying to get her to hospital?
He must have known she was already dead by this point ...
Plus what was this other person doing near there anyway?
Heard the commotion and shots then came to see what was happening?
And quill, think you got that spot on, was about to post much the same.

Pistorius has a housekeeper who sleeps in quarters off the kitchen:

Independent, ie. wrote:
A Malawian housekeeper who was at the home of Oscar Pistorius on the night Reeva Steenkamp was killed "heard nothing" and will not be called by either the state or the defence team to give evidence in the athlete's murder trial.

Frank Chiziweni is understood to have slept in the domestic quarters next to the Paralympian's kitchen on the ground floor of his home on a secure estate outside Pretoria.

He has not been called as a witness because he has nothing to say.

Do you think he's been paid off?