[Crimson Dynamo]

Oscar Pistorius attacked his lover Reeva Steenkamp with a cricket bat before shooting her dead, new forensic evidence claims

• Athelete claims he accidentally shot Reeva after mistaking her for intruder
• Forensic experts now claim injuries on her back match the tip of cricket bat
• Marks on ripped and twisted handle also suggest struggle between couple
• Backs up prosecution case he shot her in fit of rage during a violent row

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz46RnAGaiC

[Niamh.]

Well, I can't say I'm shocked at that revelation. The only thing I was ever shocked at about that case is that the judge bought his story first time round..........

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, I can't say I'm shocked at that revelation. The only thing I was ever shocked at about that case is that the judge bought his story first time round..........

i have not been that impressed by their legal system to be honest

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i have not been that impressed by their legal system to be honest

mmmmm

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, I can't say I'm shocked at that revelation. The only thing I was ever shocked at about that case is that the judge bought his story first time round..........

It's been a farce, it's not even a lack of evidence issue... the scene is almost self-explanatory. Basically because of the massive (and somewhat justified) paranoia surrounding break-ins / violent attacks in people's own homes in South Africa, he was given the "benefit of the doubt". In most other countries his version of events would have been considered ludicrous...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's been a farce, it's not even a lack of evidence issue... the scene is almost self-explanatory. Basically because of the massive (and somewhat justified) paranoia surrounding break-ins / violent attacks in people's own homes in South Africa, he was given the "benefit of the doubt". In most other countries his version of events would have been considered ludicrous...

It was absolutely ludicrous, even in a country where break ins are common, you surely don't just open fire on a locked door of a bathroom without first of all verbally checking that it isn't your partner :/

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's been a farce, it's not even a lack of evidence issue... the scene is almost self-explanatory. Basically because of the massive (and somewhat justified) paranoia surrounding break-ins / violent attacks in people's own homes in South Africa, he was given the "benefit of the doubt". In most other countries his version of events would have been considered ludicrous...

I agree totally.
I know there is saying truth is strange than fiction but this account of events from him really stretched that one so far it broke completely.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It was absolutely ludicrous, even in a country where break ins are common, you surely don't just open fire on a locked door of a bathroom without first of all verbally checking that it isn't your partner :/

His argument there, I think, was that the covers on her side of the bed were heaped up and so in his head he was "sure" she was still in the bed. Of course that lead to the question of "if you thought someone dangerous was in the house wouldn't you first wake your partner to tell them to get somewhere safe"... I think his answer to that was along the lines of "shrug!".

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

His argument there, I think, was that the covers on her side of the bed were heaped up and so in his head he was "sure" she was still in the bed. Of course that lead to the question of "if you thought someone dangerous was in the house wouldn't you first wake your partner to tell them to get somewhere safe"... I think his answer to that was along the lines of "shrug!".

Ridiculous. If you thought you heard an intruder in your bathroom surely the very first thing any person does, is wake your partner and say "Did you hear that?" or "Call the police" etc etc

[Toy Soldier]

On another note - is it just me, or does it make him seem even more unhinged that he attacked her with a bat? I mean yes, shooting at someone through a door, or at all, is enough but... To have someone defenceless right there in front of you, and swing a solid chunk of wood at them? There's a sort of primitive / raw violence in that, it takes some serious rage .

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

On another note - is it just me, or does it make him seem even more unhinged that he attacked her with a bat? I mean yes, shooting at someone through a door, or at all, is enough but... To have someone defenceless right there in front of you, and swing a solid chunk of wood at them? There's a sort of primitive / raw violence in that, it takes some serious rage .

Yeah, it takes alot more effort and force to beat someone with a bat then it does to pull the trigger of a gun

Poor girl though, imagine her parents having to read what she went through that night

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, I can't say I'm shocked at that revelation. The only thing I was ever shocked at about that case is that the judge bought his story first time round..........

Yup, pretty much this tbh

[Cherie]

I am a bit shocked, not because I believe his story because I don't, but because the bat formed part of the original evidence, surely this would have been an easy spot for a forensic scientist at the time, and would have formed a major part of of the prosecution case. I think these two lines buried in the story are very telling - so basically its a sensational claim to sell a book, I'm surprised at the DM being taken as gospel on this one when its stories are dismissed in other situations.

The claims have been made by brothers Calvin and Thomas Mollett in new book Oscar vs The Truth after studying evidence and conducting their own tests, it was reported by The Sun.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz46SHcQCdF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[DemolitionRed]

Forensics is clever stuff when it comes to outing murderous liars.

[Nedusa]

Domestic violence comes in all forms, add to this brew a celebrity with a huge ego, a gun fanatic, self esteem issues due to his disability, and obviously deep anger issues and this story is easy to understand.

[Beso]

roid rage.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Domestic violence comes in all forms, add to this brew a celebrity with a huge ego, a gun fanatic, self esteem issues due to his disability, and obviously deep anger issues and this story is easy to understand.

yeah, sounds about right

[the truth]

deary deary me, this man is guiltier than a murderer standing over a dead body with a meat cleaver in his hand screaming i did it i did i killed the bastard

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

deary deary me, this man is guiltier than a murderer standing over a dead body with a meat cleaver in his hand screaming i did it i did i killed the bastard

I 100% agree with you here the truth, his record of events just sounds even more crazier now.

[*mazedsalv**]

I just don't get it. Firstly how can someone do this in the first place, second, how on earth did he get the "benefit of the doubt". He's a murderer, simple as.

It's just so scary the fact that you don't know what goes on behind closed doors. Lots of celebrities and civilian couples look happy when they are out and about, but it's scary knowing how much of that is forced happiness. It's scarier IMO when a couple seems to be so close in public, but then this happens.

Decide from these 4 options....

a) He is a murderous person with intent to kill
b) He was on drugs or not himself
c) He lost his rag and did this, then tried to rack up sympathy because of his disability
d) That it wasn't him and he was somehow framed (which is so out there and I can't believe that anyone would think this).

For me, it was a combination of A and C. "Maybe if I do kill her, I won't get the blame because of my disability. I mean how can a guy with no legs murder someone?".

WHY oh WHY, is this still going on. He should have been about 3 years into his life sentence with no parole.

[Vicky.]

Mainly C for me. Argument about something, he had temper issues...killed her then played the sympathy card and got a ridiculous judge who ate up his sob story.