Obama can't kick his legacy down road




President Obama has a small window of opportunity to get Congress to act on his priorities, Gloria Borger says.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Gloria Borger: Prospect of deep budget cuts was designed to compel compromise

  • She says the "unthinkable" cuts now have many supporters

  • The likelihood that cuts may happen shows new level of D.C. dysfunction, she says

  • Borger: President may want a 2014 House victory, but action needed now




(CNN) -- So let's try to recount why we are where we are. In August 2011, Washington was trying to figure out how to raise the debt ceiling -- so the US might continue to pay its bills -- when a stunt was hatched: Kick the can down the road.


And not only kick it down the road, but do it in a way that would eventually force Washington to do its job: Invent a punishment.



Gloria Borger

Gloria Borger



If the politicians failed to come up with some kind of budget deal, the blunt instrument of across-the-board cuts in every area would await.


Unthinkable! Untenable!


Until now.


In fact, something designed to be worse than any conceivable agreement is now completely acceptable to many.



And not only are these forced budget cuts considered acceptable, they're even applauded. Some Republicans figure they'll never find a way to get 5% across-the-board domestic spending cuts like this again, so go for it. And some liberal Democrats likewise say 8% cuts in military spending are better than anything we might get on our own, so go for it.


Opinion: Forced budget cuts a disaster for military


The result: A draconian plan designed to force the two sides to get together has now turned out to be too weak to do that.


And what does that tell us? More about the collapse of the political process than it does about the merits of any budget cuts. Official Washington has completely abdicated responsibility, taking its dysfunction to a new level -- which is really saying something.


We've learned since the election that the second-term president is feeling chipper. With re-election came the power to force Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and good for him. Americans voted, and said that's what they wanted, and so it happened. Even the most sullen Republicans knew that tax fight had been lost.


Points on the board for the White House.






Now the evil "sequester" -- the forced budget cuts -- looms. And the president proposes what he calls a "balanced" approach: closing tax loopholes on the rich and budget cuts. It's something he knows Republicans will never go for. They raised taxes six weeks ago, and they're not going to do it again now. They already gave at the office. And Republicans also say, with some merit, that taxes were never meant to be a part of the discussion of across-the-board cuts. It's about spending.


Politics: Obama more emotional on spending cuts


Here's the problem: The election is over. Obama won, and he doesn't really have to keep telling us -- or showing us, via staged campaign-style events like the one Tuesday in which he used police officers as props while he opposed the forced spending cuts.


What we're waiting for is the plan to translate victory into effective governance.


Sure, there's no doubt the president has the upper hand. He's right to believe that GOP calls for austerity do not constitute a cohesive party platform. He knows that the GOP has no singular, effective leader, and that its message is unformed. And he's probably hoping that the next two years can be used effectively to further undermine the GOP and win back a Democratic majority in the House.


Slight problem: There's plenty of real work to be done, on the budget, on tax reform, on immigration, climate change and guns. A second-term president has a small window of opportunity. And a presidential legacy is not something that can be kicked down the road.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gloria Borger.






Read More..

Football: Jones strike earns Schalke draw at Galatasaray






ISTANBUL: Schalke 04 brushed off poor recent form to earn a 1-1 draw at Galatasaray in the Champions League last 16, first-leg clash on Wednesday despite the hosts fielding Didier Drogba and Wesley Sneijder.

After Turkey striker Burak Yilmaz gave Galatasaray an early lead at the Turk Telekom Arena, US midfielder Jermaine Jones equalised on the stroke of half-time to give Schalke a slim advantage ahead of the March 12 second leg.

Schalke have now lost just one of their last ten European away fixtures, including victories at Olympiakos and Arsenal, in sharp contrast to their recent Bundesliga form.

After just one victory in their last 12 games, this was a huge improvement by the Royal Blues.

Despite Drogba and Sneijder making their Champions League debuts for the ambitious Turkish club since joining last month from Shanghai Shenhua and Inter Milan respectively, both had quiet games as the hosts failed to dominate.

The game started at a frantic pace with both teams focusing on attack while leaving plenty of space at the back.

The hosts took the lead when Yilmaz, with a superb first touch, flicked the ball with his heel over marker Benedikt Hoewedes and slammed his shot past Schalke goalkeeper Timo Hildebrand after just 12 minutes.

The Germans had their chances as Hoewedes' header found Dutch striker Klaas-Jan Huntelaar, back in the side after a two-week break with a burst blood vessel in his left eye, but he could not stab the ball over the line.

Ex-Schalke midfielder Hamit Altintop hammered the underside of the cross-bar for Galatasaray in a busy opening period while Schalke's Jefferson Farfan was only denied when defender Semih Kaya turned his shot around the post.

Jones is suspended for the return leg on March 12 after his appeals for a booking against Selcuk Inan saw him earn a yellow card of his own on 35 minutes.

But the US international redeemed himself when he converted a brilliant pass from Farfan to hit the back of the net after a fast break for the equaliser on 45 minutes which will be invaluable in the return leg.

Schalke had a let off with 25 minutes left when Drogba put Yilmaz in a great position, but Hildebrand blocked the shot just as the offside flag went up.

Huntelaar smashed a shot over the bar with 75 minutes before making way for Finland's Teemu Pukki, while both Yilmaz and Sabri Sarioglu both tested Hildebrand at the other end.

With Borussia Dortmund having earned a 2-2 draw at Donetsk and after Bayern Munich's impressive 3-1 win at Arsenal on Tuesday, all three Bundesliga clubs now have a strong chance of making the quarter-finals.

-AFP/ac



Read More..

Lance Armstrong won't cooperate with USADA probe








By Jason Hanna, CNN


updated 4:40 PM EST, Wed February 20, 2013





































Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years


Lance Armstrong over the years





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25




26




27



>


>>







STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Agency had given cyclist until Wednesday to decide whether he would cooperate under oath

  • Armstrong's lifetime competition ban could have been altered had he cooperated

  • Cyclist was stripped of Tour de France titles after drug and blood-doping accusations




(CNN) -- Cyclist Lance Armstrong will not cooperate with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's investigation of performance-enhancing drug use in the sport, an Armstrong attorney said Wednesday.


USADA had given Armstrong -- who publicly admitted such drug use last month -- until Wednesday to decide whether he would cooperate under oath with investigators as part of a possible path to altering his USADA-imposed lifetime competition ban.


"Lance will not participate in USADA's efforts to selectively conduct American prosecutions that only demonize selected individuals while failing to address the 95% of the sport over which USADA has no jurisdiction," Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said in a written statement Wednesday.








USADA CEO Travis Tygart issued a statement Wednesday saying that "over the last few weeks (Armstrong) has led us to believe that he wanted to come in and assist USADA, but was worried of potential criminal and civil liability if he did so."


"Today we learned from the media that Mr. Armstrong is choosing not to come in and be truthful and that he will not take the opportunity to work toward righting his wrongs in sport," Tygart said. "At this time we are moving forward with our investigation without him and we will continue to work closely with (the World Anti-Doping Agency) and other appropriate and responsible international authorities to fulfill our promise to clean athletes to protect their right to compete on a drug-free playing field."


Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles by international cycling's governing body in October after a damning report by USADA accused him and his team of the "most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program" in cycling history.


He first admitted using performance-enhancing drugs and blood doping during a January television interview with Oprah Winfrey.


The USADA banned Armstrong, 41, for life but said the ban could be reduced to eight years if he cooperated under oath with investigators. Armstrong's competitive cycling career is long over, but he moved on to triathlons and won several of them in 2012.


The agency initially gave Armstrong a February 6 deadline before extending it by two weeks.


CNN's Jason Morris, Wayne Sterling and Steve Almasy contributed to this report.











Part of complete coverage on


Lance Armstrong






updated 10:13 AM EST, Sat January 19, 2013



The fairy tale of a cancer survivor who beat the odds to win the Tour de France a record seven times has crashed and burned. What can we learn?







updated 10:18 AM EST, Sat January 19, 2013



When it comes to seeking public redemption for crimes and misdemeanors, such as cheating in the Tour de France, surely being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey is, well, cheating.







updated 8:21 PM EST, Fri January 18, 2013



In July, when the riders of the Tour de France headed into Paris during the final stage of the race, they gave the honor of leading the pack onto the Champs-Elysees to George Hincapie.







updated 10:25 AM EST, Sat January 19, 2013



After years of tenacious spin that he was innocent, Lance Armstrong confessed said he used performance-enhancing drugs.







updated 1:06 PM EST, Fri January 18, 2013



Armstrong still must face judgment from a different group of fans: those who have personal experience with cancer.







updated 11:06 PM EST, Thu January 17, 2013



In a sense, Fred Schuster has a permanent reminder of disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong etched into his skin.







updated 1:43 PM EST, Fri January 18, 2013



Cheating arises from desires, incentives, pressures.







updated 7:56 AM EST, Fri January 18, 2013



Lance Armstrong admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs. Here's a look at what they are, and how they work.







updated 2:39 PM EST, Fri January 18, 2013



CNN asked for views on whether disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong deserves another chance.







updated 8:46 AM EST, Thu January 17, 2013



Armstrong has not only spent years vehemently denying using banned performance-enhancing drugs; he also has viciously attacked those who told what they knew about doping in the sport and implicated him in the process.







updated 4:27 PM EST, Tue January 15, 2013



The court of public opinion weighed in decidedly against Lance Armstrong, even before the broadcast of an interview in which he is said to acknowledge using performance-enhancing drugs after years of denials.







updated 9:26 AM EST, Tue January 15, 2013



Lance Armstrong's feat of winning seven consecutive Tour de France titles was like the demigod Hercules achieving his "Twelve Labors."







updated 3:40 PM EDT, Mon October 22, 2012



The International Cycling Union announces hat Lance Armstrong is being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.




















Read More..

Pistorius prosecution: Error in "testosterone" testimony

PRETORIA, South AfricaThe investigating officer in the Oscar Pistorius murder case made an error in his court testimony Wednesday when he identified a substance found in the athlete's bedroom as testosterone, the national prosecutor said.


Medupe Simasiku, the spokesman for South Africa's National Prosecution Agency, told The Associated Press that it was too early to identify the substance as it was still undergoing laboratory tests.

"It is not certain (what it is) until the forensics." Simasiku said, adding that it wasn't certain if it was "a legal or an illegal medication for now."




Play Video


Pistorius case: Police say they found testosterone, needles in bathroom






19 Photos


Olympic athlete charged with murder



Detective Warrant Officer Hilton Botha, the investigating officer, said earlier in court during Pistorius' bail hearing that police found two boxes of testosterone and needles in the bedroom of the Olympic athlete, who is charged with premediated murder in the Feb. 14 shooting death of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

It was a mistake to identify the substance now, Simasiku said, as it was still unknown. He said the discovery of needles was in Botha's statement, however.

Pistorius denies murder, saying in an affidavit Tuesday that the Valentine's Day shooting was accidental because he thought there was an intruder in his house.

In response to Botha's claim, the defense said Wednesday, the second day of Pistorius' bail hearing at Pretoria Magistrate's Court, that the substance found was not a steroid or a banned substance but an herbal remedy.


Pistorius' lawyer Barry Roux had slammed Botha's testimony earlier, saying police "take every piece of evidence and try to extract the most possibly negative connotation and present it to the court."


International Paralympic Committee spokesman Craig Spence told the AP soon after the substance claims that Pistorius — the world's most famous disabled athlete — was drug tested twice in London last year by the IPC, on Aug. 25 and Sept. 8. Both test results were negative, Spence said.

The Aug. 25 test was an out-of-competition test, and the Sept. 8 one in-competition, a day before the end of the London Paralympics.

The International Olympic Committee said it didn't test Pistorius at the Olympics, but referred the AP to the IPC's negative tests. International athletics body the IAAF and the World Anti-Doping Agency would not comment because it was an ongoing legal case.

"Bearing in mind the ongoing police investigation, WADA must refrain from making any statement at present," WADA said.

Giving testimony, Botha said police made the discovery of testosterone in bedroom of the double-amputee runner and multiple Paralympic champion's upscale Pretoria house after the shooting of Steenkamp but offered no further details or explanation. State prosecutor Gerrie Nel also had to correct Botha when he initially called it "steroids."

Simasiku later told the AP that the detective, Botha, thought it was testosterone by reading the first few letters of the label.

Pistorius' lawyer Roux, said on questioning the detective — who has 16 years' experience as a detective and 24 years with the police — that it was not a banned substance and that police were trying to give the discovery a "negative connotation."

"It is an herbal remedy," Roux said. "It is not a steroid and it is not a banned substance."

The debate over the substance added another dramatic twist to a case that has already gripped the world's attention since Steenkamp's killing at Pistorius' home last Thursday.

Prosecutor Nel also had to clarify that police were not saying that Pistorius was using the substance, only that it was discovered along with the needles in his bedroom.

Pistorius said Tuesday in a written affidavit and read in court by Roux that he mistakenly killed model Steenkamp in the early hours of Valentine's Day when he fired four shots into a locked toilet door, hitting his girlfriend three times after thinking she was a dangerous intruder.

The prosecution claims Pistorius intended to kill the 29-year-old Steenkamp after they had a fight.

Read More..

Arias Can't Remember Gory Death of Ex-Boyfriend












Accused murderer Jodi Arias told an Arizona jury today that her ex-boyfriend became enraged when she dropped his new camera, body slammed her to a tile floor and threatened to kill her, and in the frantic struggle that followed she remembers a gun being fired accidentally but does not remember stabbing him.


Her version of Travis Alexander's death was the culmination of more than a week of testimony in which Arias, 32, has tried to convince the jury she killed Alexander, 27, in self-defense during a violent episode in what she has described as an increasingly abusive relationship. She is on trial for murder and could face the death penalty if convicted.


Arias said that Alexander lost his temper when she dropped his camera on his bathroom floor while taking nude photos of him. Enraged, he picked her up and body slammed her onto the floor, screaming at her, she told the jury.


She said she ran to his closet to get away from him, and then exited through the closet's second door into Alexander's office where she grabbed a gun that she knew he kept on a top shelf. She could hear Alexander's footsteps coming after her down the hall, she said.


She tried to keep running, but as Alexander came after her she said she pointed the gun at him in an attempt to ward him off.


"I pointed it at him with both of my hands. I thought that would stop him, but he just kept running. He got like a linebacker. He got low and grabbed my waist, and as he was lunging at me the gun went off. I didn't mean to shoot. I didn't even think I was holding the trigger," she said.








Jodi Arias Describes Violent Sex Before Shooting Watch Video









Jodi Arias Testifies Ex Assaulted Her, Broke Her Fingers Watch Video









Jodi Arias Gives Explicit Details About Doomed Relationship Watch Video





"But he lunged at me and we fell really hard toward the tile wall, so at this point I didn't even know if he had been shot. I didn't see anything different. We were struggling, wrestling, he's a wrestler.


"So he's grabbing at my clothes and I got up, and he's screaming angry, and after I broke away from him. He said 'f***ing kill you bitch,'" she testified.


Catching Up on the Trial? Check Out ABC News' Jodi Arias Trial Coverage


Timeline of the Jodi Arias Trial


Asked by her lawyer whether she was convinced Alexander intended to kill her, Arias answered, "For sure. He'd almost killed me once before and now he's saying he was going to." Arias had earlier testified that Alexander had once choked her.


But Arias' story of the death struggle ended there when she told the court that she has no memory of stabbing or slashing Alexander whose body was later found with 27 stab wounds, a slit throat and two bullets in his head. She said she only remembered standing in the bathroom, dropping the knife on the tile floor, realizing the "horror" of what had happened, and screaming.


"I have no memory of stabbing him," she said. "There's a huge gap. I don't know if I blacked out or what, but there's a huge gap. The most clear memory I have after that point is driving in the desert."


Arias' defense rests heavily on the description of Alexander's death, as her attorneys have argued she was forced to kill Alexander in self-defense. She has described what she said were Alexander's increasingly abusive and rage-filled outbursts toward her in the weeks leading up his death.


The prosecution alleges that Arias murdered Alexander in a jealous rage, and has attempted to prove that the killing was pre-meditated. They will cross-examine Arias after she is done testifying for the defense.


Arias said that she remembers driving away from Alexander's home in Mesa, Ariz., and "coming to" somewhere in the desert to realize that her lover was likely dead, and that she had killed him. As it dawned on her that police would soon be looking for Alexander's killer, she said she decided that she would pretend the bloody confrontation had never happened.


"I knew that it was really bad, that my life was probably done now. I wished it was just a nightmare I could wake up from, but I knew I had messed up pretty badly and the inevitable was going to be something I could not really run from," she testified.


"I didn't want anyone to know that that had happened or that I did it, so I started taking steps in the aftermath to cover it up. I did a whole bunch of things to try to make it seem like I was never there," she said.






Read More..

How can U.S. deal with cyber war?




Michael Hayden says lack of domestic agreement is driving U.S. to take the offense on cyber attacks.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Obama administration beefing up effort to counter cyberattacks

  • Michael Hayden says emphasis is on striking first, as the U.S. does with drone attacks

  • Ex-CIA director says drone policy reflects lack of consensus on handling prisoners

  • Hayden: Is killing terrorists preferred because of division over how to try them?




Editor's note: Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was appointed by President George W. Bush as CIA director in 2006 and served until February 2009, is a principal with the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm. He serves on the boards of several defense firms and is a distinguished visiting professor at George Mason University.


(CNN) -- Human decisions have complex roots: history, circumstance, personality, even chance.


So it's a dangerous game to oversimplify reality, isolate causation and attribute any particular course of action to one or another singular motive.


But let me tempt fate, since some recent government decisions suggest important issues for public discussion.



Michael Hayden

Michael Hayden




Over the past several weeks, press accounts have outlined a series of Obama administration moves dealing with the cyberdefense of the United States.


According to one report, the Department of Defense will add some 4,000 personnel to U.S. Cyber Command, on top of a current base of fewer than a thousand. The command will also pick up a "national defense" mission to protect critical infrastructure by disabling would-be aggressors.


A second report reveals another administration decision, very reminiscent of the Bush Doctrine of preemption, to strike first when there is imminent danger of serious cyberattack against the United States.


Both of these represent dramatic and largely welcome moves.


But they also suggest the failure of a deeper national policy process and, more importantly, the failure to develop national consensus on some very difficult issues.


Chinese military leading cyber attacks


Let me reason by analogy, and in this case the analogy is the program of targeted killings supported and indeed expanded by the Obama administration. Again, I have no legal or moral objections to killing those who threaten us. We are, as the administration rightly holds, in a global state of war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.








But at the level of policy, killing terrorists rather than capturing them seems to be the default option, and part of that dynamic is fairly attributable to our inability to decide where to put a detainee once we have decided to detain him.


Congress won't let him into the United States unless he is going before a criminal court, and the administration will not send him to Guantanamo despite the legitimate claim that a nation at war has the right to detain enemy combatants without trial.


Failing to come to agreement on the implications of the "we are at war" position, we have made it so legally difficult and so politically dangerous to detain anyone that we seem to default to killing those who would do us harm.


Clearly, it's an easier path: no debates over the location or conditions of confinement. Frequently such action can be kept covert. Decision-making is confined to one branch of government. Congress is "notified." Courts are not involved.


Besides, we are powerful. We have technology at our fingertips. We know that we can be precise, and the professionalism of our combatants allows them to easily meet the standards of proportionality and distinction (between combatants and noncombatants) in such strikes, despite claims to the contrary.


And we also believe that we can live with the second and third order effects of targeted killings. We believe that the care we show will set high standards for the use of such weapons by others who will inevitably follow us. We also believe that any long-term blowback (akin to what Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the image of "arrogance" such strikes create) is more than offset by the immediate effects on America's safety.


I agree with much of the above. But I also fear that the lack of political consensus at home can drive us to routinely exercise an option whose long-term effects are hard to discern. Which brings us back to last week's stories on American cyberdefense.


In the last Congress, there were two prominent bills introduced to strengthen America's cyberdefenses. Neither came close to passing.


In the Senate, the Collins-Lieberman Bill created a near perfect storm with the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Chamber of Commerce weighing in strongly against the legislation. That two such disparate bodies had issues with the legislation should suggest how far we are from a national consensus.


In the House, a modest proposal from the Intelligence Committee to enhance cybersharing between the private sector and the National Security Agency was met with a presidential veto threat over alleged privacy concerns and was never even considered by the Senate.


Indeed, my preferred option -- a more active and well-regulated role for NSA and Cyber Command on and for American networks -- is almost a third rail in the debate over U.S. cybersecurity. The cybertalent and firepower at Fort Meade, where both are headquartered, are on a short leash because few dare to even address what we would ask them to do or what we would permit them to do on domestic networks.


And hence, last week's "decisions." Rather than settle the roles of these institutions by dealing with the tough issues of security and privacy domestically, we have opted for a policy not unlike targeted killing. Rather than opt for the painful process of building consensus at home, we are opting for "killing" threats abroad in their "safe haven."


We appear more willing to preempt perceived threats "over there" than spill the domestic political blood that would be needed to settle questions about standards for the defense of critical infrastructure, the role of government surveillance or even questions of information sharing. And we seem willing to live with the consequences, not unlike those of targeted killings, of the precedent we set with a policy to shoot on warning.


I understand the advantage that accrues to the offense in dealing with terrorists or cyberthreats. I also accept the underlying legality and morality of preemptive drone or cyberstrikes.


I just hope that we don't do either merely because we don't have the courage to face ourselves and make some hard decisions at home.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michael Hayden.






Read More..

US oil rallies on upbeat Seaway pipeline reports






NEW YORK: US oil prices gained Tuesday as traders digested news of an easing chokepoint on the key Seaway pipeline serving Gulf Coast refineries.

A barrel of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) settled at $96.66 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up 80 cents.

In London, a barrel of European benchmark Brent crude settled at $117.52 on the Intercontinental Exchange, 14 cents higher.

The New York session was lackluster after traders came back to work following a long weekend. US markets were closed Monday for a public holiday.

Some analysts said trading volume remained thin because of a major gathering this week of oil traders in London.

WTI spent much of the morning near the break-even line, but picked up support later in the session as the S&P 500-stock index held onto gains.

"We were pretty much trading flat," said Carl Larry, a broker with Atlas Commodities, who cited the jump in equity markets as a factor in the oil rally.

Also lifting oil prices were media reports that the Seaway pipeline, which has been troubled by distribution problems of late, plans to pump 295,000 barrels a day between late February and the end of May.

The news on Seaway is "bullish" because Seaway's flow has at times fallen below 200,000 barrels a day, said Dominick Chirichella, an analyst of the Energy Management Institute.

Seaway has been seen as a critical component in addressing a glut of oil at the bottlenecked US hub in Cushing, Oklahoma. The pipeline's capacity was recently expanded to 400,000 barrels a day from 150,000 barrels, but the operator has encountered technical problems that have limited the volume.

"I don't think there's been one silver bullet" driving Tuesday's rally in oil prices, Chirichella said. "Just a lot of little things."

-AFP/ac



Read More..

Pistorius: 'She died in my arms'






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Oscar Pistorius paints a detailed picture of his version of his girlfriend's death

  • "I had no intention to kill my girlfriend," he says in the statement

  • "We were deeply in love and couldn't be happier," he said

  • Prosecutors dispute Pistorius' version, say he meant to kill her




Pretoria, South Africa (CNN) -- It was the middle of the night, Oscar Pistorius says, and he thought an intruder was in the house. Not wearing his prosthetic legs, feeling vulnerable in the pitch dark and too scared to turn on the lights, the track star pulled his 9mm pistol from beneath his bed, moved toward the bathroom and fired into the door.


It was only after he called to girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp -- whom he thought had been in bed beside him after a quiet evening -- that he realized something horrible might have happened, he told Chief Magistrate Desmond Nair in a statement read by his lawyer during his bond hearing Tuesday. Prosecutors dispute the version of events that Pistorius detailed in his statement.


Pistorius says he broke down the locked bathroom door -- at one point in the statement saying he kicked the door in, at another saying he used a cricket bat to break it down -- then scooped up the mortally wounded Steenkamp and carried her downstairs after for help.


"I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms," he said in the statement. "I am absolutely mortified by the events and the devastating loss of my beloved Reeva."


Pistorius' affidavit in alleged murder of girlfriend









Pistorius' girlfriend dies on Valentine's Day










HIDE CAPTION
















'Blade Runner' Oscar Pistorius



















HIDE CAPTION





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18



>


>>












While prosecutors and defense lawyers agree Pistorius shot Steenkamp, the track star denied intentionally killing her, in the statement read Tuesday.


Prosecutors say they believe Pistorius put on his prosthetic legs, picked up his gun and walked to the bathroom where Steenkamp, 29, had locked herself -- apparently after a heated argument -- and shot at her four times.


Three of the bullets struck Steenkamp, who died soon after. Her funeral was Tuesday.


Pistorius spent much of the hearing sobbing and heaving at the mention of his girlfriend's name, at one point forcing Nair to stop the proceedings to ask him to compose himself. His family stood nearby, huddling during breaks and appearing to pray. During parts of the hearing, Pistorius' brother placed his hand on the suspect's back.


During Tuesday's hearing, Nair upgraded the charge against Pistorius to premeditated murder, saying he could not rule out the possibility that the track star planned Steenkamp's death. But Nair said he will consider downgrading the charge later.


The allegation of premeditation makes it more difficult for Pistorius' attorneys to argue he should be released on bail pending trial. To win bail, the defense must argue that "exceptional circumstances" exist that would justify Pistorius' release.


The session ended Tuesday afternoon with no decision on bail for Pistorius, 26. Prosecutors said they needed time to study the affidavits read in court before deciding how to proceed.


Opinion: What my son taught me about Pistorius


In the statement read by his lawyer, Pistorius said he would not try to flee or influence any witnesses if he is allowed out on bail, and argued that his release wouldn't be a danger to public order.


The hearing is scheduled to resume Wednesday morning.


Follow updates on our live blog


A tragic mistake?


In his statement, Pistorius said Steenkamp came over February 13, opting for a quiet dinner in over a night out with friends. They wrapped up the night with a bit of television in bed for him, some yoga for her. She had brought him a Valentine's Day present to open the next day.


After the couple had gone to bed, he said he got up in the early hours of February 14 to close the balcony door in his bedroom when he heard a sound in the bathroom.


Pistorius said he'd been a victim of violence and burglary in the past, and realized with terror that contractors who worked at the house had left ladders outside.


Fearing someone had entered the home through the open bathroom window, moving in the dark on the stumps of his amputated legs, Pistorius grabbed his pistol from under the bed and yelled at the intruder to get out.


"I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eye on the bathroom entrance," Pistorius said in his statement. "Everything was pitch-dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light."


"When I reached the bed, I realized that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name," he said.


He said he threw open the balcony door and screamed for help, put on his prosthetic legs and tried to kick in the door to the separate room inside the bathroom containing the toilet. Then, he said, he picked up a cricket bat, smashing panels out of the door before finding a key and unlocking it.


"Reeva was slumped over but alive," he said.


Pistorius said he called for help and was told to take her to the hospital himself.


He carried her downstairs and tried to help but, but she died.


"I cannot bear to think of the suffering I have caused her and her family, knowing how much she was loved," he said.


But he said he did not mean to kill her, and protested the charges against him.


"I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated murder because I had no intention to kill my girlfriend," Pistorius said in the statement.


"We were deeply in love and couldn't be happier," he said."I loved her and I know she felt the same way."


A premeditated murder?


Prosecutors, however, painted a different picture.


They rejected Pistorius' claim that he mistook her for a burglar, saying it would make no sense for an intruder to hide behind a locked bathroom door.


Instead, they say Pistorius armed himself, attached his prosthetic legs and walked 7 meters (23 feet) to shoot Steenkamp through a bathroom door after a heated argument.


Defense attorney Barry Roux questioned the state's argument, asking how prosecutors would know Pistorius had put on his prosthetic legs and walked to the bathroom before shooting his girlfriend.


Police were alerted to the shooting by neighbors, and residents had "heard things earlier," police spokeswoman Denise Beukes said.


Authorities said there had been "previous incidents" at the home, including "allegations of a domestic nature," but did not provide details.


Detectives are investigating the blood-stained cricket bat found in the home, Johannesburg's City Press newspaper reported. They are trying to determine whether it was used to attack Steenkamp, if she used the bat in self-defense, or if Pistorius used it to try to break down the bathroom door, the newspaper said.


Final farewells for Steenkamp


As the drama in court unfolded, friends and family mourned Steenkamp at a private funeral in her hometown of Port Elizabeth.


"There's a space missing inside all the people she knew that can't be filled again," her brother Adam Steenkamp told reporters outside.


Steenkamp was a law school graduate whose modeling career was on the rise. She landed the cover of FHM magazine and recently appeared on a reality TV show.


On Sunday, South Africans heard Steenkamp's voice one last time after her death, when the national broadcaster aired a pre-recorded episode of the show. The model talked about her exit from "Tropika Island of Treasure," on which local celebrities compete for prize money.


"I'm going to miss you all so much and I love you very, very much," she said, blowing a kiss to the camera.


Case rivets fans


The case of the global sports hero known as the "Blade Runner" has riveted stunned fans around the world.


As he walked into court in a blue shirt and gray suit, frenzied photographers snapped away, prompting the judge to demand they stop.


The scene was a far cry from the packed stadiums that erupted in applause whenever the double-amputee competed against men with legs.


On social media, sentiment appeared to mixed. "Oscar Pistorius is telling us rubbish," one Twitter user posted.


But others were more supportive after hearing Pistorius' story. "I for some reason believe Pistorius after reading his affidavit!!," another person tweeted.


Robyn Curnow reported from South Africa; Holly Yan reported and wrote from Atlanta. CNN's Nkepile Mabuse also contributed to this report.






Read More..

Pistorius' account of shooting, in his own words

Oscar Pistorius, the famed double amputee South African Olympian, has been charged by prosecutors with intentionally murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in his Pretoria home.



Play Video


Pistorius: I thought girlfriend was a burglar



He has said it was an accident, that he mistook her for a burglar when he fired several rounds through a locked bathroom door with a 9mm pistol. When a judge ruled Tuesday that he could not outright dismiss the prosecution's premeditated murder charge, Pistorius told his side of the story to the court on the same day Steenkamp's family laid her to rest in coastal Port Elizabeth.



The following are the portions of the statement Pistorius' lawyers submitted to the court via an affadavit that offer his view of the tragic events of this past Valentine's Day:

  • 16.2 I have been informed that I am accused of having committed the offence of murder. I deny the aforesaid allegation in the strongest terms.
  • 16.3 I am advised that I do not have to deal with the merits of the case for purposes of the bail application. However, I believe that it is appropriate to deal with the merits in this application, particularly in view of the State's contention that I planned to murder Reeva. Nothing can be further from the truth and I have no doubt that it is not possible for the State to present objective facts to substantiate such an allegation, as there is no substance in the allegation. I do not know on what different facts the allegation of a premeditated murder could be premised and I respectfully request the State to furnish me with such alleged facts in order to allow me to refute such allegations.
  • 16.4 On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home. I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine's Day but asked me only to open it the next day.
  • 16.5 After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep.
  • 16.6 I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.
  • 16.7 During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.
  • 16.8 I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.
  • 16.9 I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.
  • 16.10 I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
  • 16.11 I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.
  • 16.12 It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
  • 16.13 I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding.
  • 16.14 When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.
  • 16.15 I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. I think I must then have turned on the lights. I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive.
  • 16.16 I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom. I phoned Johan Stander ("Stander") who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance. I phoned Netcare and asked for help. I went downstairs to open the front door.
  • 16.17 I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital. I carried her downstairs in order to take her to the hospital. On my way down Stander arrived. A doctor who lives in the complex also arrived. Downstairs, I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms.
  • 16.18 I am absolutely mortified by the events and the devastating loss of my beloved Reeva. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in. I cannot bear to think of the suffering I have caused her and her family, knowing how much she was loved. I also know that the events of that tragic night were as I have described them and that in due course I have no doubt the police and expert investigators will bear this out.
Read More..

Jodi Arias Emails Claim Ex Threatened 'Revenge'












Accused killer Jodi Arias described today a barrage of threatening text messages sent by her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, in which he told her he would exact "revenge" on her soon.


The messages show a growing discord between the pair in April 2008, less than two months before Arias killed Alexander in a bloody attack that she claims was self-defense.


"Do not call back," Alexander wrote in one message read aloud in court today. "I'm sick of you playing stupid and dealing with your childish issues. Bitter feelings are brewing in me for you, and if it keeps up I fear I will have a genuine dislike for you before I have a revenge."


"You don't care about anything that doesn't involve you, and I'm sick of it, and I don't want to deal with any of it," he said. "It's wearing me out and if it continues, just like I have to give you motivation to tell me the truth I'll give you motivation to quit screwing with me," he said.


Catching Up on the Trial? Check Out ABC News' Jodi Arias Trial Coverage


Timeline of the Jodi Arias Trial








Jodi Arias Gives Explicit Details About Doomed Relationship Watch Video









Jodi Arias Murder Trial: Why She Said She Did It Watch Video









Jodi Arias Tells How She Met Ex-Boyfriend on Stand Watch Video





Arias is charged with murder for Alexander's death, and could face the death penalty if convicted. In her six days on the stand so far during her trial, Arias has described increasingly aggressive behavior from Alexander, who would show his "wrath" by kicking her in the ribs, cursing at her, and calling her names when they argued. One attack broke one of her fingers, Arias said, showing the court a permanently bent finger.


In one text message conversation, Alexander threatens Arias with "punishment." She explained on the stand that Alexander became obsessive about the identity of a stranger who told Arias that Alexander was cheating. A woman dining at the restaurant where Arias worked allegedly stopped her, identified herself as Marie, and told Arias about Alexander and another woman. Arias said she never learned the woman's identity.


"After tomorrow it's going to be really bad for you. It's time to spit it out," read one text message from Alexander about the woman's identity.


"I promise you the punishment will be better than the lie," read another.


Watch the Jodi Arias Trial Live on ABCNews.com


The threatening texts and aggressive behavior drove Arias to move away from where Alexander lived in Mesa, Ariz., back to her hometown of Yreka, Calif., she said.


"I told him we need to spend more time apart, but not to get him out of my life. I wanted us to be able to have a friendship," she said.


But Alexander continued to have explosive reactions in their relationship, especially when he found out she was spending time with another man or sending messages to a romantic interest online.


"At this point it was just pure wrath," she said.


Arias, 32, is expected to testify this afternoon about the events leading up to the day in June 2008 in which she drove to Alexander's house, had sex with him, and then killed him.


The testimony comes as the trial enters its eighth week in Phoenix. The prosecution has laid out its argument accusing Arias of killing Alexander, her former lover, in a jealous rage that left him with 27 stab wounds, a slashed throat, and two bullets in his head. They say the murder was premeditated and that Arias lied about her behavior until she was cornered by evidence, and then changed her story to killing him in self-defense.


Arias' attorneys are attempting to convince the jury that Alexander was a controlling, abusive "sexual deviant" who used Arias as his "sex slave."



Read More..