Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend...

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21455453

How do you mistake your girlfriend for an intruder...(allegedly)

Taylorman,

I was thinking if the poor woman was slumped against the door having been shot and he tried to breakdown the door he could have hit her too.

As I say, you don't need to tell me about straws...

I suppose, the combination of my admiration for Pistorius combined with a fear of someone being found guilty by the press have me hoping that his version of events is true, if unlikely.

yeah thats the unfortunate thing. For me he was an interesting character at best so if hes found guilty hes not only done the deed hes been a coward in not fronting up- allowing her life to be discarded and abused again for his wellbeing and survival.

For every person that defends his right to fair trial, she needs a voice as well, and even if he genuinely thought it was an intruder, he will go down as one of the stupidest and most wreckless defenders of his person and territory in history, not for once considering the possibilities of it being her by not bothering to check, and I dont buy a female partner presenting such a scenario that he mistakingly took it for his life being threatened enough to evoke that reaction.

Either way hes guilty, it just depends what of.

Biltong wrote:True, but how does he explain the four bullet holes in the bathroom door?

Three of them might have been "initial warning shots"??

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Biltong wrote:True, but how does he explain the four bullet holes in the bathroom door?

Three of them might have been "initial warning shots"??

Through the ceiling, yeah?

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Biltong wrote:True, but how does he explain the four bullet holes in the bathroom door?

Three of them might have been "initial warning shots"??

Through the ceiling, yeah?

He missed the ceiling and hit the bedroom door, could happen it was dark.

He claims in his affadavit that he called out her name before shooting. Surely she would have responded if she was holed up in the jacks and he could have put his pistol away.

It's difficult to comment on this whole indaba. But what is clear is that the media misrepresented Pistorius in the past (they portrayed him as a saintly hero, when he clearly wasn't) It's intriguing to see how quickly the media (I can only really speak of SA media here) are swinging to the other extreme and attempting to try him in the press, taking rumours and publishing them as fact etc, contravening laws regarding publication of info etc. Hence I don't want to jump to any conclusions too swiftly on the basis of media reports, lest they be misrepresenting him again...

Dave. wrote:Sadly, its looking like "Another hero, another mindless crime".

Hey my crimes aren't mindless!

Wow this story is incredible. Haven't seen the likes of it since OJ Simpson.

I want so badly to believe Oscar but it just doesn't add up to me. I'm sure his remorse is genuine but I just can't come to the conclusion that this was an accident even if the police are muppets, Its an awful tragedy and justice must be done.

No wonder the police are stuffing things up. Why have they been asked to present this much detail for a bail hearing? They either have enough to hold him or not.
If he gets bail its unlikely hes going to do this again- the main reason bail is sought. If hes pereceived to be a threat to witnesses etc give him home detention.

Some evidence that he was involved in a restaurant shooting and asked someone to take the blame? hmmm.

The main thing that gets me is when youre alone at night with your partner and you think theres a prowler and you have time to get up, get your gun, either put on your legs on or not, the FIRST thing you check is if your loved one is PRESENT and ok. Because your survival instincts kick in, and part of that is protecting your partner or family. And she, according to him, was in the same room.

That part of the story does not gel. Because if you checked and she is not there the first thing you would assume is she is the one making the noise in the bathroom.

I guess an ankle bracelet isnt going to work?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I guess an ankle bracelet isnt going to work?

it might, unless he has an extra pair you would assume he can't be too far off.

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I guess an ankle bracelet isnt going to work?

it might, unless he has an extra pair you would assume he can't be too far off.

What I meant was that he could just change legs and go and see Mr Mugabe.

Must say reading the twitter updates, the prosecution is making a lot of dodgy points and errors.

For example there witness began 600m away, and then was around 300m away...

I have no more idea than anyone else here what happened that night.

The Prosecution would need to have a lot more convinsing evidence than someone 300m away saying they heard an argument to allow conviction surely.

How can they even present that as evidence? How many other houses are there in that 300m radius that any argument could have come from?

If they were arguing for the hour before the shots were fired it completly destroys the case for the defence. I don't have much faith in a prosecution that would present such a testimony as evidence of a fight between the 2 of them.

The prosecution do realise this is only the bail hearing and not the trial right? They seem to be giving away there hand already...

Amazing that the lead detective has been dropped from the case because he also faces several murder charges. Crazy country!!

Oscar Pistorius killed his girlfriend.

His reasoning is a bit weak - "I thought she was a burglar".

Burglars generally break in and hide themselves in toilets do they?

4 shots is an awful lot. I don't think you can call them a warning.You don't accidentally do that. Pistorius shot to kill.

beshocked wrote:Oscar Pistorius killed his girlfriend.

His reasoning is a bit weak - "I thought she was a burglar".

Burglars generally break in and hide themselves in toilets do they?

4 shots is an awful lot. I don't think you can call them a warning.You don't accidentally do that. Pistorius shot to kill.

Friend of mine had his house broken into. the burglar left a floater in the toilet for good measure. Burglars need to use the toilet too.

I don't think burglars have a general phobia of toilets...

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:Oscar Pistorius killed his girlfriend.

His reasoning is a bit weak - "I thought she was a burglar".

Burglars generally break in and hide themselves in toilets do they?

4 shots is an awful lot. I don't think you can call them a warning.You don't accidentally do that. Pistorius shot to kill.

Friend of mine had his house broken into. the burglar left a floater in the toilet for good measure. Burglars need to use the toilet too.

I am saying that I doubt the normal port of call for a burglar is the toilet. Going to steal some loo roll are they?

I am sure they don't have a phobia but then again I don't think they are massively attracted to them.

Anyway you don't shoot 4 times into a confined space like a bathroom unless you are shooting to kill. He didn't think to ask the question - whose there? Check where his girlfriend was?

Even if Pistorious is telling the truth he still had the intention of killing whoever was in the bathroom.

I was in a nightclub in Munster a few years ago. Club was half full when a young man walked across the dance floor with a toilet under his arm. I later realised he had swiped it from the men's toilets. True story. He robbed the toilet, don't ask me why.

GunsGerms wrote:I was in a nightclub in Munster a few years ago. Club was half full when a young man walked across the dance floor with a toilet under his arm. I later realised he had swiped it from the men's toilets. True story. He robbed the toilet, don't ask me why.

Did the Gardai flush out the guy who did it??

No he didn't get into any sh1t in the end.

Is it too early for the Nike jokes?

Spoiler:

What next for Nike? Will McIlroy declare for Britain or something repugnant like that?

Nike is allegedly changing their logo.

Spoiler:

Granted bail

gazzyD wrote:Granted bail

Not surprised though he probably should not be granted bail.

Some notes on the SA legal system: The prosecution had to provide at lot of evidence to ensure that the case is tried as a murder case as opposed to as an a manslaughter case or even an accidental death enquiry (which would impact the nature of the bail ruling)
Secondly bail is not decided on the basis of how guilty he is likely to be, but on whether the accused is a flight risk, whether he will be able to influence witnesses and whether it is safe for him to return to his community...

Finally Pistorius is claiming that the reason he thought it was a burglar in the toiletof all places is because the toilet window is the only one wihtout a burglar-guard - hence the only access window in the house.

Mr Fishpaste,

Were they not saying that OP would only get bail on a Premeditated Murder charge if the Magistrate thought there was a possibilty of him being found not guilty?

I know that is a long way from saying he will be found not guilty, but they did say there had to be a significant chance or he would not get bail on that charge.

MrsP, from how I understood it (and I am no legal fundi) is that he is charged with a schedule 6 crime (the highest criminal rating) and for the purposes of the bail, the state had to provide a stromg case for (1) flight (2) intimdation of witnesses and (3) a propensity for violence.

At this stage the court must presume innocent until proven guilty and Oscar himself must "motivate" his request for bail.

They were also talking about special circumstances but the talk went on for so long I stopped listening and found that part quite vague.

In the bail statement there was also a lot of criticism towards the investigating officer in the way he provided no concrete evidence (dates, etc) of supposed violence from the accusations levied by the officer.

Interesting to note this has not yet been christened the "trial of the 21st century" yet by media.

Its still very early doors, but both the states and indeed Oscars version of events are so to say dodgy.

Key Questions that need to be asked:

Why didnt Reeva reply that it was indeed her behind the door & not an intruder?
Why did Oscar feel the need to shoot at an intruder four times?
Why would an intruder break into a small bathroom door instead of the balcony? (This is actually a stupid question as the answer, in terms of Oscars defence, is obviously, 'Cos I just closed it'.)

However the state was very poor with a few items. Questions they will need to respond to are, among others:

If Reeva was fearing an enraged Pistorious, why hide in the bathroom, instead of unlocking the bedroom door and simply leaving the house (the state claims the front door was left ajar).
Also the deceased has no external wounds outside of the gun wounds, so why would she feel so frightened from a verbal argument that she hid in a bathtoom?
One of the states bones of contentions was the question of why would she just go to the bathroom with her phone. That question made me feel wierd as I do that all the time. More importantly, though it made me wonder: According to the state, she was sleeping at the side of the bed with the gun, as well as the cricket bat and the baseball bat. Assuming her life is now in mortal danger from a rampaging Oscar, why doesnt she arm herself? She has shooting experience.
Also, how much of our judgement is based on inconsistencies the media fed us? Three shots is a long way from the 9 some agencies have claimed. Her skull was not crushed. The neighbor who heard screaming cant really say what they were saying (its just as likely to be vigorous intercourse as it is to be death threats).
Lastly, how much stock can be put into the neighbours account of events? S/he didnt accurately even hear how many shots were fired.

kingraf,

On the, "why didn't Reeva say it was her when OP was shouting at intruders" one.

If she was in the loo and heard OP shouting at her that there were intruders she may well have kept quiet so as not to alert those supposed intruders to her location. If this was the situation there was no way for her to know that OP thought the intruder was in the loo. If we are away from home I might take my phone into the bathroom too to check the time without disturbing anyone else.

Im very interested to understand something. According to police reports, Oscar fired shots at a downward angle aimed at the toilet seat. Unless, the state can prove Reeva was kneeling, and Oscar knew this, it will be interesting to see how they will prove Oscar tried to kill her by shooting at the thigh region.

I had a chat to a mate of mine today about this whole incident.

He owns plenty of guns and said the first rule of shooting (it's in the exam when you get your license) is you must be able to see what you are shooting at.

Clarify this for me.

What is your natural instinct when you hear a burglar in your house?
You collect your family and see that they are safe.

What do you do when you find the suspected burglar is locked in the bathroom?
You tell him you have a gun and is phoning the police, you don't storm into any room or anywhere ekse, you go stealth mode.

I have a mate who once knocked out a guy who pointed a gun at him, I pretty much froze when I had a knife pointed at me. I do boxing and MMA, he does rugby and cricket. My point? Instinct isnt an exact science. we all respond to fight or flight scenarios in different manners. Even if we are trained, with what to do in simulated situations, the brain shuts down and its all reflexive. You have had a family for how long? He lives alone and was seeing his lady for 3 months.

Biltong, my major issue with the states case is simply- There is no motive and even less evidence of a struggle. The fact that they are looking at cell phone records of the ordeal, having done that the first day is a sign that they are scraping at the barrel, in terms of evidence which isnt forensic

So far we know that:

Oscar, his brother and the prosecuter are all facing charges for killing someone. WTF is going on in SA?

I thought Bakkies Botha was a thug. He is probably considered soft in SA.

GG,

Before you are sued for libel, I think it is the, now removed, investigating officer rather than the Prosecutor and the charge is Attempted Murder X 7.

Unless I've missed something...

MrsP wrote:GG,

Before you are sued for libel, I think it is the, now removed, investigating officer rather than the Prosecutor and the charge is Attempted Murder X 7.

Unless I've missed something...

Not sure I can be sued for libel when I have clearly said facing charges of rather than guilty of etc. Thanks for your concern though.

Speaking of libel, a good many local journalists had better pray for OP to end in jail.. some choice words have been used about Oscar before any definitive evidence has been used.