ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Oscar pistorius(1000 Posts)
Heard the news this am
I'm just Devastated for him and his family and partners family
His 'defence' as full of holes as a barrel of arses
Yes. I find his version of the story dubious to say the least - and she's not here to give her side. The neighbours reporting screams and shouting earlier in the evening speaks volumes.
But a national sporting hero always seems to be given the benefit of the doubt in the media.
Hopefully not in court, though.
of course there is doubt:
firstly, if you intended to kill someone you wouldn't likely do it through a door would you? You'd have no way of knowing whether you'd even hit them let alone whether you'd killed them. so the talk of "pre-meditated" murder automatically falls down there IMO.
Secondly, he wouldn't have known the door was locked unless he'd tried it. Bathroom doors in SA aren't like doors here where you can twirl a lock on the inside and thus see on the outside if it's locked - they lock with a key or a push lock on the inside. So he would have had to try the door to see if it was locked - something which would be unlikely if he feared there was an intruder inside. Burglars in SA generally come armed either with a gun or a knife - you don't face one unless you have to.
As for "he would call to/check for his gf" this is pure speculation made at a point when we are all thinking rationally what we might do in the heat of a moment. Fact is we don't actually know unless faced with such a situation. I've thought before that I've heard someone downstairs (here in the UK not SA) but have got straight out of bed and gone downstairs to check without waking or talking to dh - it's a split second reaction - a reaction which is heightened when you live in a country where you know an intruder comes armed and prepared to kill you whether you are going to tackle him or not.
I think the door is actually the factor which makes this a more plausible defence than anything else tbh. If there were no door between them I would be more but I don't see how you could plan to murder someone by shooting through a closed door at them where you had no line of sight or point of accuracy.
Also if ladders were nearby with easy access and no bars on the widow he would know she could have got out easily if she'd locked herself in there to get away.
I don't think it's odd to lock the door. What I do find odd is that he shouted out and she didn't shout back and say 'it's me in here'.
My first thought was why would Reeva have locked the bathroom door in the middle of the night when she thought Oscar was asleep, as others have said.
But I suppose, she could have been in the bathroom, doing her business, when suddenly she heard Oscar shouting about an intruder. It's possible she didn't realise he was shouting at the bathroom door, and believed an intruder was in the bedroom. In which case, it's plausible that she kept quiet and quickly locked the door.
I just don't know what to think. But there are plenty of holes in his story nonetheless.
wannaBe but the toilet was very small. 1.4m x 1.4m I read. So the prosecution are saying even if it was an intruder in there, the chances of them being killed when 4 shots were fired was pretty high. They are saying it doesn't matter if he believed it was an intruder or not, it's intentional murder either way.
so if it had been an intruder he would still have been charged with murder?
Was just about to ask that WannaBe.
I believe so yes. I read the live court feed on the Guardian website and that's how it came across.
I could be wrong because I don't have detailed knowledge of SA law but the prosecution were certainly saying that whoever was on the other side of the door probably would have died and it didn't matter if he thought it was an intruder.
clearly we need more facts and there is a lot of conflicting info circulating.
I've just read in one of the online newspapers that the bathroom involved was ensuite. If this is the case, how could he get the gun (kept in the bedroom) and shoot at the ensuite bathroom door without noticing that his girlfriend wasn't in the bed?
And why would she have locked the bathroom door if she was simply using the loo in the early hours - I'd be lucky to shut the door properly.
Re the balcony door being open until the wee hours, that is odd for someone who is so paranoid about safety in home. Paranoid enough to fire 4 rounds at a shut bathroom door without knowing the whereabouts of their loved one. It is quite common to use the bathroom in the night. But it is summer down there and it is hot - so perhaps he did sleep with the balcony door open.
Was balcony door in the bedroom? That would make sense re leaving it open due to heat. If it was elsewhere in the home, then I think that seriously weakens his 'paranoid about being attacked in the night' position. If you were that worried then you wouldn't leave a living room balcony door open while you slept in another part of the house would you?
I really hope for everyone's sake the SA police and forensic team do a proper job here. Surely the truth can be revealed forensically? There must be a lot of GSR & blood splatter etc telling the tale. I like to see a floor plan of the house & know where exactly the bathroom and balcony were located.
Prosecution say he had his prosthetics on, defence say he didn't. Surely the height/trajectory of shots fired will prove which one is lying?
I think this is key part of the evidence unless I'm missing something?
Why wouldn't he be charged with murder?
I don't understand the whole 'premeditated murder' - how 'premeditated' does it have to be? I don't think it's likely that even if he knew it was her in there that he planned ahead to murder her (if he had he'd do it when he could see what he was shooting at), it would have been in the heat of the moment in an argument... they say the guns were in the bedroom already so he didn't get them out of a safe or anything.
I guess it's still murder as soon as you aim and pull the trigger you must know they'll likely die (not like punching somebody) but it's the premeditated bit that confuses me.
I agree snowball that will be a crucial part of the case.
Premeditated just means that you know what you are doing is likely to kill someone. It does not mean planned.
I have a feeling there will be sufficient reasonable doubt in this case for an acquittal. Of the pre-meditated murder, that is. Clearly he has killed her - presumably he can't logically be acquitted of straight murder?
I followed the Casey Anthony trial in America last year. She was acquitted of killing her daughter even though she appeared overwhelmingly guilty. The jury felt there was a smidgen of doubt and so she walked. I realise OP won't be tried by a jury so there is a greater chance of a guilty verdict but still...I do think in legal terms, there is doubt. No witnesses, only one person alive to tell the tale, the prosecution will be relying mostly on common-sense and logic. They have no evidence of pre-meditation, beyond gut instinct.
I just read on the sky website that the toilet was along a passage 7 meters away from the bedroom. Not exactly ensuite. Shows how much guff is being bandied around by the papers and its not even the trial.
badguider the prosecution lawyer said "pre planning doesn't mean months, weeks or hours. It means I ready myself, I get a gun, I make it ready to fire and I walk there to shoot"
And yes snowball I agree. Ballistics and forensics will surely be decisive.
Ie they weren't having a row then he suddenly puts his hands round her throat. He had time to think to get a gun, walk back and think about shooting.
Ah so premeditated doesn't mean planned in this case. Interesting.. i wish that lawyers / the legal system would use words as they are dictionary defined it would cause a lot less confusion:
Dictionary: Premeditated: Think out or plan (an action, esp. a crime) beforehand: "premeditated murder".
Actually I think that shooting at them through a door makes it worse-you can´t see where you´re aiming so can´t shoot to incapacitate & don´t even know if they are armed.
Plus of course, you can´t see if it´s an intruder or your gfriend who´s staying over!
Casey Anthony was acquitted because the jury bottled out of condemning a woman to death. There are no points of comparison here whatsoever.
Badguider planned doesn't have to mean the day/month before though.
It could mean picking up a gun in a rage and thinking to yourself "I'm going to fucking shoot ***." I think it could be 'planned' in the moments before the event. As opposed to picking up a gun which misfires and kills someone - you had no plan or premeditation to kill them, even though you had killed them.
badguider also the judge said "it's not necessary for there to be a thinking out of the act and the execution to show premeditation"
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.