Mumsnet Talk

Heard the news this am

I'm just Devastated for him and his family and partners family

BBC news says he has shot his girlfriend. Did you know that?

Yes it seems that is the caseRhianon

YES

Poor poor woman! My thoughts are with her family!

SA is such a violent society . There are car jacking s and murders every day

Accidentally it says.

Of course, if you are planning to bump someone off... 'I thought it was a burglar' isn't a bad start to your defence.

I am making the assumption they did not live together . And I 100 percent this was a tragic accident

I wouldn't have a clue if he meant to or not. I have heard it happens frequently in places where there are large numbers of gns. My grandad killed his dog with a piece of wood becasue he thought it was an intruder behind a door. A less violent man would be difficult to meet.

MY POINT is Hoe could anyone LIVE with themselves after an accident like this .

Of course there's a possibility it was murder .....but I Suspect that it was certainally not

yes la trucha ... Once again ... An incident that highlights the issues around the dangers of GUN ownership

But he shot her in the head. My first thoughts were similar to cogito's. If you think someone is a burgler why aim for the head?

Certainly?.... Sure of that are you?... A poor youg woman lies dead, shot twice, once in the head apparently, and we're completely certain that this isn't an extreme case of DV?

Just so desperately sad.......

yes it could be domestic violence

I am shocked! Just heard it on the TV where a south african correspondant said he was in a secure, guarded community.....the risk of burglary should not have been substantially high.

The BBC isn't saying he shot her thinking she was a burglar.

They are reporting official police statement that a woman was shot dead at his house, and he is being questioned (no indication whether as witness or in another capacity). Everything else is sourced to unspecified "local sources" of unknown reputation.

Now, they may have good reason to be running this story that way so prominently. But right now they seem to be fuelling speculation.

Absolutely terrible news whatever the circumstances

yes Impatient One I totally agree .

It is certainly a tragedy. Whatever happened. I don't think it's helpful to bring up domestic violence yet.

The BBC and everyone else are reporting that the south African police are saying its a case of mistaken identity and that it's thought he mistook her for an intruder.

Mind you. The SA police don't have a great reputation.

Utterly shocked to hear this. Yes, Radio One certainly reported it as a case of mistaken identity. A tragedy either way.

Only yesterday I was trying to explain to DD why having a gun "for protection" was a bad idea, even in very dangerous places to live.

Apparently she was sneaking in as a Valentine surprise?

My condolences go to her and her family, utterly tragic.

I heard that on LBC - so sad if that is the case.

In SA most people have guns due to the violence (I know ironic) but burglary is so commonplace and the burglars will often tie the family up and rape the women. This happened to friends of a friend who were missionaries out there. His wife and two daughters were violently raped while he was knocked unconscious and left for dead.

Totally dreadful of course, but it has to be considered that in a high crime environment, a person with significant impairments (no matter how speedy in blades) may feel even more vulnerable to attack. I'm assuming if he was in bed, then not wearing prosthetics.

But surely not possible to discount dv without an investigation.

Heard it on ITV Rhiannon86.

Says that here too.

I have no doubt the truth will never be known about this case, celebrity and DV don't bode well for the truth.
Either way he's a murderer.

I am beyond gutted, I genuinely respected him.

My twat radar clearly needs further tuning.

The police are to give a press conference later today. Perhaps at will cut through some of the speculation. Pistorius is to appear in court later today, but no word about what charges.

This is just terrible. Poor woman - and poor him if he did think she was a burglar .

I think it's very hard to judge whether it is DV or an accident from this distance - it must be very strange to live in a country where having and using a gun is the norm, and where everyone is afraid, even in their own house.

Either way it is tragic.

her tweets from yesterday and the timing of it (she didn't live with him) suggest it was a surprise visit, and that he would have been asleep when she came into his room. As someone already said, if it's a burglar, why go for the head / chest, however would you necessarily know where the hell you're aiming in the dark when you've been woken up and are scared sh*tless? Won't necessarily get him off a manslaughter charge however. Any SA lawyers here who know what the test of m'slaughter is in SA?

Tweet from BBC Sport just now: "South African police will be opposing bail for Oscar Pistorius and say there are "other witnesses" to the shooting."

All very sad.

And another tweet from BBC Sport: "South African police say there have been "previous incidents" at the home of Oscar Pistorius of "a domestic nature"."

My thoughts go to her family, poor poor things how bloody awful. At the end of the day their daughter and loved one was murdered whether by accident or deliberate, her family have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Everything else is just pure speculation at the moment.

How awful .

SKY carried a statement by the South African police live.

The police officer said at he had arrested, the charge is murder, he will appear in court this afternoon and the police will oppose bail. The investigation is ongoing, forensics teams are at the house, possible witnesses (neighbours) will be interviewed this morning. There were no other people in the house, and she disavowed the speculation about a possible intruder as not originating from the police. There had been previous incidents at the house of a domestic nature.

She did not name the victim, as formal identification has not yet taken place. However Reeva Steenkamp's publicist has given an interview about how saddened she is about her death.

I hope that the DV thing is not true.

Coming from SA - you live on edge and living in a gated, secure complex doesn't give you any surety that you are not going to be robbed. Unfortunately, crime in SA has an awful edge to it - women are routinely raped, beaten and families murdered. It is not unusual for my parents to wake up in their Jhb neighbourhood and hear gunshot. I think the unfortunate thing is now it is shoot to kill and ask questions later ...

I was appalled by the way the news was covered this morning - possibly I need to listen to a better class of radio station (Xfm) but the newsreader and the DJ were babbling on about how dreadful this was for him and he is such an icon, this will destroy him - erm... a woman is dead! But that appears to account for nothing if the killer is famous

I am from Cape Town and living there is certainly not "living on the edge". My family have never owned any weapons and do not live in fear. It is actually a lovely place to live, but there are more dangerous places. I would imagine that if you were the type to own a gun in South Africa, that you would shoot to kill if someone broke into your home because burglars have been known to kill. But it is also widely publicised that if you own a gun there is a very high chance of you dying by that gun.

If this is DV I'll be so sad. I did think him a bit of a hero.

And yes, reading that post by Lovecat, it is horrible for that woman and her family. Tragic.

"In SA *most people have guns?" No one we know! Yes lots do, not most. People don't live in fear but there's a siege mentality, heightened alert. I only really noticed this by its absence when we were on hol in Uk. Apparently police opposing bail.
Wonder if DV issue- huge here and there was a horrible recent gang rape/murder of a young teen which has been much debated here (but not in foreign press!)

3.00pm news on now - Pistorius has been charged with murder.

murder? not manslaughter? Does SA law differentiate?

It looks as if the story about him mistaking her for an intruder was pure speculation on the part of the South African media. The police have now said that neighbours reported hearing screaming and shouting earlier on in the evening.

There is a distinction apparently between 1st and 2nd degree in RSA.. intentional and otherwise... but he's charged with murder. The RSA police mentioned being called to other events/disturbances at the same property in the past... not information the British police would give out in a press conference under similar circumstances, admittedly. All the rumours about burglars and valentine surprise visits, the police say they know nothing about.

There are no degrees of murder. There is an alternate charge of culpable homicide, if the killing was accidental but negligent.

God, poor Reeva , she seemed like a lovely, lovely woman. They seemed like the perfectly matched couple. So lovely together.

This is awful all round.

I am a twitter follower and am totally stunned

nothing more I can say

He has arrived in court.

I have no long how a first hearing is likely to take, but there might be further information about the charges shortly.

The media deliberately obfuscated about this when they chose to go with the "mistook her for a burglar" angle.

The most likely explanation in terms of statistics, is that he is a violent abuser and this is a clear cut case of domestic violence. But the media choose not to speculate on that, preferring to speculate instead on something that whitewashes the prevalence of DV.

I'm really that there seems to be more sympathy for him, than her!

That's not a normal reaction when a man shoots his girlfriend in the head, is it??

Why is that?

Sheer misogyny.

She doesn't matter. He does.

I read that he had previously ( a while ago) been accused of assaulting a 19-year old woman, but it didn't go to court. So to me, it just feels like the usual story of women not being believed, and public not wanting to hear bad things about their heroes... but my guess is that he is quick to violence. Either it is DV, or, it is an accident, but one which would not have happened if he had not been essentially violent - shoot-first-think-later. Poor poor Reeva Steenkamp (and also I am cross that news reports (eg on TV) say "his girlfriend" rather than name her, even now she does not get recognition. Isn't it something like 100 women who will be killed by their partners this year, in the UK? It makes me sick, people excusing his behaviour in any way.

So sad for all involved

I agree. All this nonsense about him crying in court. I don't care.

I also gt very annoyed when that family was sht by the road in France. The father was named constantly, but the mother in law, mother and daughter were just referred to as his 'and his family'.

It sucks.

But she's dead, she's not suffering. Her family are, fair enough.

If he killed her by accident then he's going thru a complete nightmare. I'm sympathetic about that small possibility.

I wish that it were possible to think of something good coming out of this.

All are sympathies ought to be with the victim not the person responsible for taking her life. If she had shot him she would be treated much more harshly. Double standards all around.

I agree. I've been shocked at how much sympathy there is for him. A young woman has been brutally killed and all some people can say is how terrible he must be feeling. It's just horrible. Think what her last moments must have been like. Some people have a very skewed moral perspective.

He'll get all the love and attention he needs in a SA prison.

Well to most people, particularly to those outside SA, they know him but not her. So "kills girlfriend" is a much more succinct, to the point headline. Not nice, but there you go.

His response to that Brazilian dude beating him at the Paralympics last summer was almost like a mask slipping. Very unsporting and surprising to many. Seems strange though that a man who seems so control in certain areas of his life can just lose it suddenly, leading to such a tragic and pointless act.

I don't think we'll ever know what actually happened, although it's not looking too good for him at the moment.

Abuse is about control though

I am really at a bit of a loss to understand peoples suprise. Being a successful sports person doesnt make a man any less likely to be abusive. I can see that people are feeling disappointed that this inspirational figure isnt what they thought he was...but is that because it interferes with how people like to think of 'abusive men'. Is it safer to think they are all 'losers'/not like us/identifiable?

has anyone read on Yahoo about this case? The baseball bat?

It becomes more peculiar. i always knew I didn't trust him.

I see the op has done a runner.

Folk in UK are always saying that if an intruder breaks into their house they should have the right to use extreme force. That would include, for instance, chasing an already severely injured intruder thru the house (indeed out of the house and down the street) with another weapon to make sure they were punished for their transgression. And they should have the right to use it again on that already injured intruder.

Yes, I'm following this case .. and the baseball bat!

He's going for bail today - why should he get that when he shot her??

And it's Reeva's funeral today - poor love.

"Folk in UK are always saying that if an intruder breaks into their house they should have the right to use extreme force."

The prosecution are saying that Ms Steenkamp had locked herself into a small bathroom. I'm trying to keep an open mind but the 'intruder' story is looking more flimsy by the minute.

apparently it is of some surprise that he put on his Legs and walked 7 metres to the bathroom,
well how else would he Walk to the bathroom ?

about this whole case

vivizone - For a minute there I thought you meant Oscar Pistorius had done a runner! Pun not intended.

The 'surprise' is actually what's missing. What is being argued by his defence counsel is that the shooting was a shock/surprise/instinct reaction to finding what he thought was an intruder in the house. What is being argued by the prosecution is a rather more deliberate and unhurried sequence of events. It's an interesting one, certainly.

does he use a wheelchair ever?

He doesn't use a wheelchair. He can walk on stumps, although I imagine not very well.

The details are just grim.

i guess it is just lawyers arguments. ridiculous.

He says he is "mortified" and was "deeply in love".

I think he is talking bollocks and is revealing it's all about him.

No, "I'm sorry" is evident, which I am sure it would be if he had made a mistake. Natural thing on making a mistake is to apologise.

Even for the no apology to her family, he is a grade A cunt.

what about innocent until proved guilty?

It's a statement to the court about bail.
It's probably been written by his lawyers anyway.

What about apologising for your mistakes?

I just don't know about this.

Scenario A - a paranoid, gun-loving high profile person who is constantly on the alert for intruders hears a noise in his bathroom in the middle of the night. In his sleepy, vulnerable (no prosethics on) state, he grams his gun, fires at the door and yells at his girlfriend to call for help.

Scenario B - A much loved hero has a violent temper and issues due to the pressures of fame and his earlier life, has a screaming row with his girlfriend, she runs to the bathroom to hide and he shoots her in a rage.

Either is plausible in my opinion. The forensics and evidence of his character is what will sway things.

Scenario A has so many holes in it, it is just you only have his word for it. Holes include:
Shooting through a locked door - why would an intruder lock the door anyway - but really, what a really weird thing to do...why would you not call the police at the point the intruder is locked in your bathroom? Why shoot?
He says he shouted at the intruder - she would have heard and said "it's me you dick"
He would have noticed her not being in the bed. It's just a given but hard to prove with only his word for it.

Hopefully there will be some witnesses as have been reported to them having rows that night which will give us some more clues.

The one thing that does ring alarm bells for me on scenario B is how quick he lost it with her, after 3 months? That is unusual for abusers.

The thing is, shooting at a locked door with an intruder in is wrong and I think if that happened in the uk you would be charged with murder. You can only defend yourself if you are being attacked, not your property or a locked toilet door. Not much of a defense really is it.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, Scenario A doesn't make his an innocent lamb, he's would still be a gun toting maniac!

I just feel there's enough room for doubt, in the absence of any DV evidence (which we don't know yet). And (reasonable) doubt means acquittal...

If you were in a house with someone else & you heard a noise in the en suite bathroom would you not first of all shout "is that you Reeva in there?" rather than shooting thro a locked door??

but did he try the door? or rather just shoot at it

Presumably, scenario A doesn't include the word "locked" for the door - he would say he thought it was just closed.

So they go to bed, bathroom door is closed. Intruder gets in window and is in bathroom, just about to open door into bedroom.

There is no way we can know for sure - the fact that the police are insistent on premeditated murder, though, means they think Scenario B.

What this does prove though, is that the vast majority of speculation in the papers is bollocks. And until the facts come out, no-one will know anything apart from the fact that Reeva is dead, and OP shot her. Those are the only facts we know for sure.

Surely if you thought you'd heard an intruder then your first thought would be to ensure your girlfriend (sleeping in the same bed as you!) was safe, by touching or whispering to her.

Even if his story is true (and it sounds pretty weak to me) then he has still broken the law multiple times... a loaded gun under his bed which surely should be kept in a locked cabinet with ammunition separate. And killing someone who by any account posed no immediate threat to him.

Mooncup - he said he was up out of bed fetching a fan when he heard the 'intruder' so wouldn't have been in the bedroom. However he said he then retrieved his gun which he kept under the bed so presumably would have had to go into the bedroom and not see her for his story to be plausible.

I've just heard his 'defence' on the news and it's as full of holes as a barrel of arses. Reeva would surely have shouted back, as mcmooncup says.

What I think is odd is that she locked the door when she went to the bathroom in the middle of the night. I'd maybe shut it, but not lock it.

I sometimes lock the door behind me when me & DH are brushing our teeth. Force of habit.

Good point about why she locked the door. I wouldn't have said the average person would lock a loo door in the middle of the night. I would leave it wide open personally, if I was just going for a wee.

Also, the kind of intruders South Africans worry about aren't the kind to run and look themselves in a loo. As I understand it the paranoia stems from the fact that these people are likely to attack, kill or rape owners and so would have probably fired the first shots in being disturbed rather than hid. If you were in his shoes and you believed an intruder was locked in your loo wouldn't you call the police / security and guard the door in case they came out?
The whole thing is so tragic and I feel so sad for all of the families and friends involved.

It's not that unusual to lock the door, especially early on in a relationship. You try to maintain some allure at that stage!

He said he went to close the sliding door and get a fan, for someone so concerned with safety why was he sleeping with the sliding door open??

Also if he shouted out to the intruder who he thought was in the bathroom surely reeva would have answered back???

Mmm too many holes in that story, I am sure the prosecutors are thinking the same thing

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"

So it was premeditated as in he thought about what to do moments beforehand.

I just read on the sky website that the toilet was along a passage 7 meters away from the bedroom. Not exactly ensuite
Thanks MrsR

I just looked for the ensuite source article again but couldnt find it - perhaps its been edited?

I wonder if the bedroom has an ensuite?

So sad

[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-live-coverage this is a good article] It's the live feed from court. Scroll right down to the bottom and it says about the toilet being 7m away and the comment from the prosecutor that it was premeditated murder even if he thought it was a burglar.

Ah, the whole corridor thing makes sense now. I originally had visions of him reaching to the bedside table for the gun and shooting the ensuite door from the bed (having no legs on) in a couple of seconds at most from start to finish....

it's a totally different situation if he was up and walking around the house already (albeit on stumps) and if the bathroom was away along a corridor.

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-live-coverage Link fail. Try again.

Be careful with that guardian link - it froze my puter up for aaaaages because there was so much to load on the page

OP said he had some mobility without his blades but going onto the balcony for a fan ,closing the doors,then went to hall,then got gun from under bed and went and shot all without? And he did all that thinking there was an intruder and his gf never woke from the bed or got up to see what he was doing? I really hope this doesn't go the way it looks it might

onlymee, I didn't mean to suggest the cases are similar. Just that this case does put me in mind of the Anthony case simply in terms of somebody being so clearly guilty to most rational people but getting off on the reasonable doubt issue.

I'm not a lawyer.

Which way Noddy?

So, if he got the gun out and shot with the intention to kill whoever was behind the door (as in thinking it is an intruder) but is shooting to kill, does it then make it not pre meditated when he realises after "oh fuck, where is my Girlfriend who was sleeping in the bed"

I am trying to make sense and probably failing.

1.So, he got out the gun to scare away or injure an intruder.

2.Got the gun with the intention to shoot and kill the intruder

or 3. Meant to kill/injure Reeva.

So surely, 2 and 3 would be pre meditated as they are describing it here, as the intent was to shoot to kill, regardless of who the victim turned out to be?

I also did think, if he was very security conscious, why would you go to sleep with sliding balcony doors open. Where did he keep the gun, by the bed? So in the time it takes him to come in from the balcony, get the gun, and walk toward the bathroom door, while shouting out, he did not notice his GF not in the bed?

It is all a bit strange, the entire situation.

I think his defence is as plausible as the prosecution.

It seems there are two groups on mumsnet ... those that think the above and will wait to see what the trial throws up and those that believe this is a case of domestic violence and will have him hung drawn and quartered before he even gets to trial/ regardless of the outcome.

noddy I don't think he wears his "blades" around the house surely?!

ah, x posted, you answered my question there...

applepieinthesky Tue 19-Feb-13 15:07:37
"Scroll right down to the bottom and it says about the toilet being 7m away and the comment from the prosecutor that it was premeditated murder even if he thought it was a burglar."

I disagree wiley - I think there are people who think it is probably a case of DV and are waiting for the trial to see what the evidence says. there are also people who are desperate to believe that he didn't do it and are making every crap excuse under the sun to explain it away.

His defence is unbelievably weak.

I haven't seen anyone say he's not guilty.... Although haven't followed all of the threads.

Have seen people say he did it without a doubt though.

Noddy, got to admit, that did make me smile too. I think he wears artificial legs most of the time and blades for running. You'd get fed up of boinging around your house eventually.

Sorry I meant that he premeditated killing her not that he murdered her as that is true without a shadow of a doubt.

re the DV, I'm finding it really hard to get my head around thinking that a relationship could escalate re DV so badly when it was only 2 months old. They should still have been in the honeymoon stage. And would this bright attractive successful women have continued a new relationship with someone, even a huge celebrity, if DV was in the picture so very early on?

I'm not saying it couldn't happen and I'm sure there are MN'er who will know DV facts and perhaps could comment on this possibility. But I do find it hard to imagine that.

Also, for the record I do think he could have killed her. But I don't know how credible it is that a DV situation could have been ongoing and so major a part of the relationship after only 2 months.

sorry - ".... could have killed her intentionally!" Clearly he killed her

I don't think he did it without a doubt at all. It's too early to say for sure. But I don't see how anyone could say he's not guilty either. And the story about why he did what he did has lots of logical holes in it. Of course human beings aren't always logical. But atm it looks like he was physically responsible for shooting at someone and the explanation of why he did it without either imagining that the person in his bathroom might be Reeva is IMO a weak one.

On the other Oscar Pistorius thread I mentioned that the concept of "premeditated" was irrelevant to the question of determining whether he is guilty of murder or not. While this is true, a murder which is "planned or premeditated" is categorised as a so-called "Schedule 6 offence" and is subject to more stringent bail and sentencing conditions. In summary, the accused must show that "exceptional circumstances exist which in the interests of justice permit his or her release" on bail, and if found guilty, is subject to a mandatory life sentence unless "substantial and compelling circumstances" exist to justify a lesser sentence.

The term "premeditated" was introduced by statute for the purposes of categorising offences for procedural and sentencing purposes in, I think 1997. It isn't defined in the legislation which refers to it, and isn't the same as "mens rea" (the intention required to prove the crime of murder), hence a bit of hemming and hawing about what it actually means. A full bench of the Cape High Court analysed the term in 2009 - a copy of their judgment can be read here - http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl?file=za/cases/ZAWCHC/2008/72.html&query=%22premeditated%20murder%22 (from paragraph 15 onward). A High Court judgment is binding on a magistrate's court.

On the sliding door - I have security gates on my sliding doors, and often sleep with the doors open (but the gates locked). Not sure if I would do so if I felt afraid or threatened though, as there is always the possibility of someone pushing something (eg a gun!) through the gate.

Would you REALLY shoot through a closed (or locked) door without being fairly sure who was behind it? If he had the gun and was pointing it at the door, surely saying something along the lines of "I have a gun pointed at you, identify yourself" would not take a huge stretch of brainpower.

Re the 7 meter corridor. The defence say he walked up & shot through the door. Cld you not fire from 7 meters away (on his stumps or legs) and (being a crack shot as the papers over the weekend state) hit with accuracy?

There are holes in both the defence and the prosecution.

Irrespective, he shot & he killed.

I meant prosthetics! Sorry He says he has limited mobility without

Is it irrespective mrsrochester in the eyes of SA law? I don't know, am sure that someone here must though?

If it turns out the judge believes he meant o shoot at an intruder nd the result was death how will he be dealt with. Sorry if this has already been covered.

The tide seems to be turning in America and even recently the UK where it seems to be more acceptable to shoot when defending your home. The defence inferred it was not uncommon for loved ones to be accidentally killed by gunshots through closed doors - what sentence to these people receive?

"I don't know how credible it is that a DV situation could have been ongoing and so major a part of the relationship after only 2 months."

It doesn't need to have been 'ongoing' or a 'major part of the relationship'. All it takes is a sudden outburst of rage.

onlymeee yes of course.

Hmmm I see that he's using total stupidity as his defence. Somehow I doubt that he was having a oneway conversation with a bathroom door that made him need to put bullet holes through it. His place must be covered in bullet holes. Don't grant him bail, he's clearly a menace to society.

rouge it doesn't matter whether he shows regret after or not. That wouldn't change the fact that it was premeditated.

I think his defence is ridiculous.

He kept a gun under the bed. So, he goes to the balcony, hears a noise, thinks there's a intruder in the bathroom and shoots through the door.

This might be vaguely believable if it weren't for the fact that he'd have to go to the bed to retrieve the gun before he could shoot it - and would see that Reeva wasn't there.

This does not look good for him at all.

I'm not sure it matters what he admits either because either way, he shot to kill or severely maim - through a door he couldn't have known which would happen - premeditated no matter who the victim was? The whole defense of protecting your home against intruders doesn't really hold water when the 'intruder' is behind a door does it?

Yes applepieinthesky.....so, the only defence then is, he thought it was an intruder, and meant to shoot to scare them away...

The fact that it turns out to have been Reeva adds an extra layer of horror to it.

So the defence will be arguing he thought it was an intruder and meant to scare them away.

Whereas the prosecution can argue, well, he may well have thought it was an intruder but he had intent to kill "someone".

So, he can still be found guilty for pre meditated murder, even if it is found that he had no intention to shoot Reeva herself? Would that be right then.

Also, I wonder, if he is found guilty, if there would be an difference in sentencing, if he is found to have meant to kill Reeva, or had the intention of killing an intruder?

So far his defence seems to be concentrating on the fact that he thought there was an intruder, but so far, no mention of what his intentions were to an "intruder" when he picked up the gun.

So, his defence about if he meant to actually shoot Reeva is pretty much irrelevant then? It is all about, at the point he picked up the gun, did he do it with the intention of shooting to kill.

the only problem with the DV argument though is that there doesn't actually appear to be a history of DV. In fact former girlfriend has come out and said that they were together for five years and he was never violent towards her - ever. That doesn't tie in with the notion of a violent man who eventually killed his partner.

"Why wouldn't he be charged with murder?" Because if it was an intruder it could be argued that he was defending himself. People are allowed to own guns in SA for a number of reasons - self defense is one of them.

I grew up in Africa (zambia, Botswana, South Africa, Namibia) and the unwritten understanding is that if someone breaks into your house then you aim to shoot them dead. The unwritten rule is also that if you shoot an intruder on your own property then you will not face prosecution, and therefore it is widely stated that if you shoot someone as they are leaving your property, you bring the body back on to your property so as to avoid getting into trouble.

just to add, I don't actually know anyone who has ever shot a burglar though.

I take it back, shooting a robber isn't necessarily murder according to this article
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9871195/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-charge-South-African-self-defence-law.html

wannaBe - But the SA police quite clearly said that they'd been called out to incidents of a "domestic nature" before - some quite recently. OK, they didn't specifically say DV, but I think there's little doubt that that's what they were alluding to.

And, while one of his girlfriends said that he was never violent, another one is saying something else entirely. So, I think it's a mistake to say that there appears to be no history of it - at the moment, it appears that there may well have been.

I think the cricket bat may be his undoing. If it's found that he hit her with it (and some reports say that her skull was crushed) then his defence will fall apart utterly.

Poor Reeve. Her last moments must have been utterly terrifying.

Reeva Sorry for the typo.

This case particularly upsets me and I can't even put my finger on what it is that makes it stand out from other bad news but it gets me every time.

I don't know about sentencing but looks like the prosecution are out to get him. I'm guessing they will try to build a picture of DV. Failing that they will argue that by firing four shots into a 1.4m x 1.4m room he fully intended to kill whoever was behind the door. Do you fire four shots just to scare someone? I'm not sure you would.

If he shot to scare somebody, why not one shot? I'm in agreement with applepie on that one.
I feel for Reeva, if OP (Oscar, not the OP!) did shoot her and was violent towards her then that is even more awful since she has apparently said to have experienced DV in a previous relationship. Terrible once, even worse twice if that is what happened.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but does "incidents of a domestic nature" cover more than just DV? Does it also mean, like playing music too loud or having mad parties which wind your neighbours up?

The locked bathroom door sort of makes sense- if he woke up suddenly, hearing a noise and moving for a weapon, she may have stirred too. Hearing him check the house may have made her think to hide in case it was an intruder. In which case the bathroom with its lockable door would've been pretty ideal for hiding until the coast was clear. Hearing him shout, probably panicked and through a door and over a corridor, may have made her unsure of who it was, so cautiously she might have decided to wait to see who it was before answering.

If he's used to sleeping on his own and panicked, there's a chance he just didn't think to check where she was before investigating the noise.

Ah dear. It's all just speculation. Either way he's killed her and he has to love with that.

I just can't get past the idea that, in a house containing only two people, it didn't occur to him (allegedly) that the person using the bathroom in the small hours was the house-guest. He's either a liar or a moron...

Ellie, from the other thread it appears that the only "domestic nature" call-out that the papers have been able to find out about is one where he was having a party, and a gatecrashing girl was asked to leave and then got her leg somehow shut in the front door.

Which presumably could have been someone being removed from the house and then sticking a foot in the door to stop him closing it? It is assault but not DV, and the charges were dropped, some say because he paid her, some say because he didn't do it on purpose.

But again, it is all hearsay - and the papers don't seem to have been too worried about "fact" up until now .

I'm the same perception. Whatever happened that night I think it's all terribly sad. All those lives destroyed in the blink of an eye.

It seems that in (certain parts anyway of) South Africa you don't shoot to scare intruders, though.

If you shoot, you shoot to kill before they come and kill you.

Very hard to understand.

apple I think it is the prosecutions job to 'get him'?

the only problem with the DV argument though is that there doesn't actually appear to be a history of DV. In fact former girlfriend has come out and said that they were together for five years and he was never violent towards her - ever. That doesn't tie in with the notion of a violent man who eventually killed his partner.

Be careful re these types of reports. They could be getting paid serious bucks to spin stories that he was not abusive.

"incidents of a domestic nature"

There was a past incident in September 2009 where he spent a night in the cells accused of assaulting (intent to cause GBH) a 19 year-old female guest at a house party.

Yes I know Big but I mean even if he didn't believe it was Reeva it looks like he could be screwed.

I agree Maryz it seems a large amount of what we have heard in the papers was not called upon in court to back up why he is facing a section 6 pre med murder charge as opposed to section 5.

I am surprised that if the cricket bat was used to harm Reeva as the media suggested, that this was not brought up as to being indicative of pre meditation and abuse.

It had also crossed my mind that "domestic incidents" may be parties as there was never any confirmation as to what these call outs involved.

Or did I hear that the police were called earlier that evening?

That was the one I was talking about Cogito.

There seem to be two stories - one story said deliberate assault, the other said that she refused to leave and was hurt by accident. Again, both plausible.

I don't know.

I'm sure if there were more, the newspapers would have found them by now.

Would he get a prison sentence for that apple? Or anyone that knows?

It says in one article I read that he had been broken into before.

Having grown up in SA (in Joburg actually) and then moved to the UK, I think it is very difficult, if not impossible for people in the UK to understand what it's like to live in a city with a crime problem like Joburg. When I was a kid, there were police helicopters circling the neighbourhood with search lights every evening, as there had been so many car jackings at peoples' houses when they came home from work (and this was a naice suburb, not a dodgy neighbourhood).
I know many people who have been broken into (even in closed neighbourhoods) and been held hostage for hours as armed burglars rampage through the house. In my family alone, my grandmother was robbed 4 times, one time she came home to a man brandishing a knife at her. My aunt and uncle's house has been broken into numerous times, my cousin held up at gunpoint at work on two occassions (and the robbers came back a few weeks later, just to walk around) and her best friend was brutally raped and murdered. Sadly, stories like these are not exceptional. People have lived for 20+ years in that city with the ongoing fear of random violence. British people can't even begin to comprehend that - all houses have burglar guards, high walls, armed response units. Restaurants aren't open after past 10 (there was one time when armed hold ups in restaurants was very common) adn you don't walk around on your own at night. At one stage the police had to walk around in gangs of at least 4, as they kept on being robbed and having their guns stolen.

I'd like to know why he carried her downstairs though.
Or how?

He didn't have his legs on did he?

I feel dirty speculating but I just can't help it. It's just so bizarre.

Wiley the prosecution are saying its premeditated murder whether he believed it was Reeva or an intruder. So I'm sure he would get a lengthy sentence but don't know if it would be any less? I don't know about SA sentencing.

^ vivi he says he put them on and carried her to get help/ was going to take her to hospital

nothing has been stated in court that her skull was crushed with a cricket bat. I think only what is stated in court is relevant here - most of what is being published in the press is utter bollocks.

I don't know, MaryZ - but I thought the way in which the police officer revealed that they'd been called out before was significant. I can't see them saying that if it had been over a loud party.

Also, they said that the neighbours had "heard things" earlier in the evening. The implication was very strong from that first press conference - there have been other incidents of a concerning nature and the neighbours heard screaming earlier in the evening.

I'll be really shocked if all of that turns out to be hype from the police force - but it's not impossible.

"most of what is being published in the press is utter bollocks"

Absolutely. That sums it up.

What will be interesting is the true version of what order he made phone calls in, because that will probably clarify at least some things. And the papers seem to be completely guessing at who he called and when.

nothing has been stated in court that her skull was crushed with a cricket bat

True. Have just been reading the Guardian account & I think that would have been brought up by the prosecution.

Thank god I live in the uk where its not trial by media. Wether or not this man did it should be decided by a judge not the papers trying to sell papers.

"Be careful re these types of reports. They could be getting paid serious bucks to spin stories that he was not abusive." Or they could be getting paid serious bucks to spin stories that he was.

But sorry - if you're sufficiently concerned by noises in your home that you go to get your gun, wouldn't you at least say something to your girlfriend who you think is in the bed you've just retrieved the gun from?

I don't buy it. At all.

If my ex was abusive towards me then killed someone no amount of money would convince me to say otherwise.

Yes, I'm sure all sorts of people are being paid money to say all sorts of things.

This is proof (if we ever needed it) to never believe anything in the papers.

They all seem to be contradicting not only each other, but themselves.

He sounds so arrogant and entitled

In an affidavit, Oscar Pistorius made the following statement which was read out in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Tuesday by his lawyer.

(This transcript is unverified and will be updated with the official version as soon as the court makes it available)

I am an adult male, SA citizen and applicant in this application and seek to be released on bail.

I make this affadavit of my own free will and have not been influenced. Contents is true and correct.

I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated murder because I had no intention to kill my girlfriend.

I have been informed I have been acused of murder – I deny the accusation.

Nothing can be further from the truth that I planned the murder of my girlfriend.

I have no intention to relocate as I love my country.

I earn R5.6m a year. I’ve never been convicted of crimes.

I deny that I committed murder in the strongest point. Even though I don’t have to, I want to deal with these allegations.

Reeva had bought me a present for Valentine’s Day. We were deeply in love.

We were deeply in love and couldn’t be happier. I loved her and I know she felt the same way.

On 13 Feb Reeva would have gone out with her friends, me with mine. She wanted to stay at home.

By about 22h00 we were in my bedroom. I was watching TV. My legs were off. She was doing yoga. At the end of the evening we got into bed.

I’m accutely aware of people gaining entries to homes to commit crime, I’ve received death threats.

I sleep with my 9mm under my bed. I woke up to close the sliding door and heard a noise in the bathroom.

I was scared and didn’t switch on the light. I got my gun and moved towards the bathroom. I screamed at the intruder because I did not have my legs on I felt vulnerable. I fired shots through the bathroom door and told Reeva to call police.

I walked back to the bed and realised Reeva was not in bed. Its then it dawned on me it could be her in there.

I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door onto the balcony and screamed for help.

I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick open the toilet door.

I think I must have then turned on the lights.

I went back into my bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door.

I called paramedics and complex security. I tried to carry her down stairs for help.

I tried to help her but she died in my arms. I am mortified.

With the benefit of hindsight I realise that Reeva went to the bathroom when I went to close the balcony door.

I trust the South African legal system and the facts will show that I did not murder Reeva.

I believe the forensic evidence will prove what I am saying. I used a cricket bat to break open toilet door.

I am an international sports star, I will not evade my trial.

After the shooting I did not flee the scene. I remained until the police arrived.

I dont know of any witnesses in this matter, and I won’t interfere with any witnesses.

My continued incarceration will be of “no benefit” to the state. Release would not disturb the public order.

www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...davit-20130219

how? How do you read that as arrogant and entitled?

That's just a series of statements. It doesn't "sound" anything, does it?

I don't know. I really don't.

The bits about money and him being a star are presumably because the police are saying because he is a star and has money he will leave the country if given bail.

Hesitate to post this, but here is the DM link to his affidavit. That one look like it's been carefully edited to be honest. And it's going to sound odd whoever writes it, it's essentially a legal document.

The bit about being an international star is relevant, not arrogance. It shows that he couldn't do a runner and evade a trial because he's one of the most famous sports stars in the world which would make it virtually impossible.

I would imagine that most of that affidavit was put together by his lawyers.

The whole thing of her getting up and going to the loo doesn't sit right.

Maybe her parents and close friends could verify this, but it sounds weird to get up in the middle of the night for a wee, and to lock the toilet door, the toilet actually already being inside a bathroom.

The below makes me side eye 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. - like he really expected to be let off straight away - no trial?

I earn R5.6m a year. I’ve never been convicted of crimes. - So?

I deny that I committed murder in the strongest point. Even though I don’t have to, I want to deal with these allegations. - 'even though I don't have to'

I am an international sports star, I will not evade my trial.

He really could have apologised or is that not part of a affidavit?

He's 'mortified'? Mortified is what you are when you've walked through a restaurant with your skirt tucked into your knickers, not when you've killed someone

Just seen above posts. In that case, I stand corrected.

exactly apple. In fact if my ex was abusive and had then gone on to kill someone I would think this was a time when I could at last be heard and that he would then hopefully be brought to justice.

I do think that it's impossible to comprehend just what it's like to live in a culture like that. In fact I think it's sometimes impossible to be totally aware of it until you don't have to live like it.

When I lived in South Africa having bars on the windows was just something you did. Having a gun was just something you did. My dad applied for a job in Joburg and I remember being excited at the prospect of potentially being able to get a big dog, because if you lived in Joburg that was just something you did.

When we lived in Zambia (I was a baby so this recollection is second hand) we were told that you don't put keys on the bedside cabinet at night because thieves will reach in through a window with a pole (covered in razer blades) in order to get them.

When I was at boarding school in SA a man broke in one night. He broke in through a downstairs window, bent the bars to get in, went into the kitchen and emptied the pantry of food. He then took it and hid it and then returned, went upstairs and went into every room until he came to one where a girl (my classmate) was sleeping on her own. He sat on the bed and when she sat up he told her to "shhh" she didn't - she screamed and he legged it. The police came, took statements, went looking, arrested someone, left. She went back to her room and there on her table was a six inch knife - he had clearly come armed but wasn't prepared for resistance.

You didn't walk around alone at night - and that was twenty years ago.

The best guard dogs are the crickets. The crickets chirp until something walks past them, and then they stop. So if they stop in the middle of the night the instinct is to wake up and wonder who is out there.

I could go on but I think you get the picture. The thing is that if this is how you grow up then this is the norm. You know what to do if you're broken into; you know how to react; this isn't a thing you hope won't happen - it's something you know likely will.

Except that you don't realise how it really is until you go and live in a country where you can walk the streets at night or leave your windows open (without bars) and where public transport is safe...

Reading that Daily Mail link, with his side of the story, does make it feasible.

I'm not saying it's true.

But with no evidence either way it is feasible, which I'm surprised at.

I presume evidence of where the shots were fired from the order of phone calls, the times etc. will either disprove it or back it up.

Tragic for Reeva, either way.

'Even though I don't have to' sounds like something a sulky teenager might say. He comes across as an utterly arrogant cunt. Not even a 'sorry' to her family - it's all about how her death has affected him. That statement is riddled with as many holes as his bathroom door and it stinks.

Exactly wannabe.

It's very easy to be sat in the UK, with a relatively non existent crime rate, and go "i don't understand how he could be mistaken".

Off the top of my head, I can list at least 20 friends/family members who have been the victims of violent crime in SA. I doubt any person I know who has just lived in the UK could do the same

the fact he earns R5m a year is relevant wrt his ability to cover bail. The fact he has never previously committed a crime is relevant to his perceived safety in being allowed out. His being an internatinal star is relevant to the fact he is internationally recogniseable and therefore unlikely to be able to flea the country.

As a rule affidavits are drafted by the legal team and then signed by the party concerned...

And yes, I agree it sounds feasible.

Are those statements supposed to be in chronological order? Because:

"I was scared and didn’t switch on the light. I got my gun and moved towards the bathroom. I screamed at the intruder because I did not have my legs on I felt vulnerable. I fired shots through the bathroom door and told Reeva to call police.

I walked back to the bed and realised Reeva was not in bed. Its then it dawned on me it could be her in there.

I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door onto the balcony and screamed for help.

I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick open the toilet door."

Odd.

To be honest, reading the whole affidavit, his defence does make more sense.

also, the use of language is potentially relevant to whether his lawyer (or the person who drafted the statement) has English as their first language. Yes in the UK such a document would be checked and double checked for gramatical inconsistencies. This is Africa we're talking about, things are not done that way in Africa.

It's not made very clear, but that "plan" in the DM is only drawn from the artist's imagination.

wannaBe. I don't think Pistorius' lawyers would be taking any chances even with grammar. Believe me that document would have been checked many times, and it is highly likely that English is their first language. 'Africa' sounds so dramatic! This is high society Pretoria not a village in Malawi.

onlymee, the point is though the toilet door which is inside the bathroom, was locked. Which is an odd thing to do for a middle of the night wee...but feasible I guess.

In his statement, he says: 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.

SO the bathroom window was open? If so, who opened it? If one of them opened it before bed he must have known, and I don't know if she'd open it for a quick trip to the toilet, especially if the toilet cubicle had its own window. Then it raises the question again; if Pistorius is so paranoid about break-ins and criminals, why would he leave or agree to leave a bathroom window open in the middle of the night?

The police/paramedics would have seen whether the window was open or not. Unless Oscar said that he closed it before they arrived. If it was open when they arrived, it suggests that if he did commit the crime, he had enough sense to set up a trail to make it look like an accidental burglar shooting afterwards: i.e. calling people, opening the window, etc. It is quite chilling if this is true.

Despite this, I believe he will walk.

I can understand how he thought it might have been an intruder if his girlfriend had let herself into the house unbeknown to him.

But why he assumed it was an intruder when he knew there was somebody else in the house makes no sense.

but locking a door could be a force of habbit thing? if, for instance, she had grown up in a house full of brothers who habitually just walked into the bathroom it could be a habit she had developed when younger and which she just did naturally? We just don't know - just because you or I wouldn't lock the bathroom door doesn't mean others wouldn't.

wannaBe. I know. That is why her family/ close friends would need to verify.

If not usual behaviour then it is odd. Very odd.

DH always locks the bathroom door when he goes to the toilet. even if its just me and him in the house. I rarely do, much to his and the DCs horror.
Not odd at all, just a habit.
The story sounds plausible, it's dark, he's terrified, adrenaline is pumping. I just can't see how he wouldn't have woken her before going to investigate. Or woken her and run off. Wouldn't your instinct be to get away?
But I also can't comprehend the levels of violent crime in SA. It's interesting and also horrifying to read some posters experience.

wannabe Ive been involved in a number of court cases in Africa (not south Africa)....and what you said, was my thoughts as I was reading that statement.

Ive had to write my own statement previously....is that how it is done in SA? in which case what is written, is an indication of his thought process and logic. On other occasions I have been asked questions and the statement has been written for me. So whilst still true....it is slightly skewed, in that you provoked to say something, which reads as kind of out of context/inappropriate...

e.g. 'I am an international Sports Star'...sounds like the big I AM, but might have been in response to 'please state your occupation' or some such

MerryMarigold I said nothing about the door being locked or unlocked. My point was exactly what I said - that the plan of the bathroom should not be taken as 100% accurate as it appears to be an artist's impression.

"He kept a gun under the bed. So, he goes to the balcony, hears a noise, thinks there's a intruder in the bathroom and shoots through the door.

This might be vaguely believable if it weren't for the fact that he'd have to go to the bed to retrieve the gun before he could shoot it - and would see that Reeva wasn't there."

Ditto what this MNer posted

'I am an athlete' would have been a much less wanky response to that question though...

yes it would hells

It just seems bizarre that his first instinct on hearing a noise in the bathroom would have been intruder rather than the other person in the house going to the loo.
Surely before grabbing his gun he would have checked to see where she was? The toilet is not exactly the place a burglar would chose to hide.

Very odd story.

Not once in that statement does he say how sorry he is, just that he's mortified. That, to me, is telling. IMO he knew exactly what he was doing and who he was shooting.

I wonder if she locked herself in the bathroom to get away from him.......

His defence doesn't make any sense to me and sounds like the best his defence team could come up with in the circumstances.

Yup. Although actually I think it's going to backfire on them: he admits to shooting into a tiny room through the door, knowing someone was in there. Four times. While in no imminent danger himself. That looks like an admission of intent to kill, ie murder. Who he thought was in there becomes less relevant then.

Dizzyhoneybee I think he can walk on his stumps without prosthetic legs.

In the statement it does say:

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

They would avoid the word "sorry" as it carries connotations of guilt. I agree that "mortified" is an odd word to choose. I wonder how many people were involved in putting this statement together.

nicholas i think a statement is a factual account. I dont think its the place for apologies? Again, IMO the relevance depends on if he wrote it himself. Would someone scribbing just leave out sentiments, so as not to confuse the document?

One thing that strikes me (and I see it has others), is that he doesn't sound even slightly remorseful.

The tone is more - how dare this happen to me?

There's an important statement in that affidavit. He says that with the benefit of hindsight, he believes Reeva went to the bathroom when he was on the balcony.

The implication being that she was in bed when he got up and he didn't see her go to the bathroom as he was faffing around with the fan, doors whatever. So he didn't check the bed again on hearing the noises because as far as he was concerned, she was still in it.

There's certainly plenty of doubt at this stage but there's a lot more evidence to come yet.

Cantbelieveitsnotbutter Tue 19-Feb-13 17:38:53

Thank god I live in the uk where its not trial by media.

Do the names Colin Stagg, Christopher Jeffreys or Kate & Gerry McCann not ring any bells?

In that case BigAudio, why does his statement include:-

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

You cant make any assumptions based on the language. It's a legal document addressing the issue of bail. It's not his memoirs. There's no place for emotional apologies, it's got nothing to do with bail. If he said 'I'm so sorry' you think they would grant him bail? Course not.
Besides it was written by lawyers and they always tend towards wanky formal language.

hells International sports star is more appropriate than 'athlete'. He is putting forward his case for bail. It shows that it would be very difficult for him to evade a trial if he is granted bail as he is instantly recognisable to so many people. Even if he somehow managed to flee abroad somebody somewhere would recognise him and he would be deported back to SA.

I didn't expect to believe any of his side of the story.

It all seemed so bizarre.

But reading it now, it does seem possible - depending of course on the time scale. I'm sure if there are holes they will be easy to find (where he shot from, trajectory of bullets, who he called and when, that type of thing.

But if she did get out of bed when he was faffing with the fan, and if she left a pile of bedclothes, it is possible he thought she was still in bed.

It's horrible, the whole thing. Because either she was deliberately killed by the man she loved, or she was accidentally killed by the man she loved. Either is awful. I really don't know which is worse, or if (for her and her family) it makes much difference.

Hopefully if it was on purpose he will be convicted and punished. Either way, he will be punished as even if it was an accident he will live with the consequences for the rest of his life.

Spot on NicholasTeakozy A family member of mine was crucified in the British press over allegations that were made against him. He was cleared in court but the crap that the press wrote has had a profound effect on him as so many people are too willing to believe what they read in the papers. So even though he was innocent it still follows him around.

I was responding to BAD's suggestion that it may have been the answer to 'what is your job'? Find it odd that he's citing his massive wealth as a reason he wouldn't skip bail - money presumably makes it easier to fuck off to a country without an extradition treaty, not harder. And having property in SA isn't exactly going to help him when he's sitting in a cell.

Maryz you speak such sense. I echo everything you have said.

Something else. I've just read she was sitting on the toilet (presumably the forensics show this). If you're running away screaming from a violent man with a gun, why would you sit on the toilet? You'd be standing on it trying to get out of the window.

For that matter, why run to the toilet at all, when you have two other exits (bedroom door and balcony)?

I don't care if "he thought she was still in bed", he should have made damn sure it wasn't her in the loo before firing a gun into it. It was a pretty obvious possibility. Guns kill people.

None of us know what happened - it is just to be hoped that the truth will be established through the proper channels.

Just to add re. fear in SA. We stayed in a flash hotel in J'burg with serious on-site security. In the middle of the night DH and I heard shots, and what we thought was movement in the grounds outside our room. The DC (15/16) were in another room across the corridor, and I was too scared to go across to their room. I really love my kids!

When we returned to the hotel later in the holiday we told the Receptionist what had happened (we had phoned reception on the night), and within minutes a rambo like head of security was at our door, explaining that they have a team on permanent standby in the hotel etc. etc. There is obviously real danger - we're just not used to living like that in the UK.

SA is a fantastic country and we had an amazing holiday despite this interlude.

Hazelnut I doubt that the media are privy to the forensics - we don't know if she was standing or sitting.

Where coulld she get to from the balcony easily? And if she ran downstairs, would she be able to get out or were the doors locked (actually doesn't he say somewhere that the bedroom door was locked?). No, the toilet would be the instinctive refuge.

Find it odd that he's citing his massive wealth as a reason he wouldn't skip bail - money presumably makes it easier to fuck off to a country without an extradition treaty, not harder. And having property in SA isn't exactly going to help him when he's sitting in a cell.. I read that as all his money is in property, so he doesn't have massive wealth to fuck off with.

True onlymeee. And I do agree with you about he should have checked. Even if his story is true, he's still an irresponsible, gung-ho idiot.

Going to be an interesting trial and a tragedy whatever the outcome.

Agree - even allowing for the slim possibility that his statement isn't utter bollocks, he's clearly a trigger-happy menace by his own admission. RedPencils - yes I guess so. Although I imagine he probably has a fair bit of ready cash too.

onlymeee yes he did say the bedroom door was locked and he has limited mobile on his stumps so he was scared for his life.

I don't feel very comfortable with posts about why she didn't run/get out/jump out the window etc.

If she was running from him, it's hardly fair to blame her for not getting away; that's a bit victim-blaming which is never good when we are talking about possible DV.

*limited mobility

I think something that is hard for most to understand (and which makes his story slightly feasible) is the level of fear and paranoia that people live with in SA. Couple that with waking in the middle of the night (possible dazed and sleepy) and reacting on instinct and without logical thought.....

It's tragic!

How many intruders are shot each year in SA, is it that many?

Maryz no one was blaming her for not getting away. I said the loo would be an instinctive refuge, and Hazelnut agreed on reflection.

That's assuming the loo was a refuge at all. The defense assumption would be that she wasn't 'running away from him' - she went for a wee (and maybe just locked the door out of habit in a sleepy state - I do that even when the house is empty sometimes). He woke and hearing a noise he went into instinctive/protective mode and shot at the closed door (without realising that it was her in there until it was too late).

The other thing to point out is that people don't react logically when in a state of fear. If the death threat claim is true then his state of paranoia may have been extreme, causing him to react first and ask questions later.

I wasn't getting at anyone in particular onlymee, I have just seen quite a lot of "why couldn't she just leave, he had no legs" type of comments in various places.

Dreams, I was wondering that, and google offered me this amongst others - no mention of a murder charge, but I don't know. The google page gave dozens of hits in the last year when I searched for "intruder shot dead" - I had to exclude the last week, as all the recent ones are about OP.

But it obviously isn't very rare.

I don't believe him for one second. He got his gun from the bed, then 'screamed' at Reeva to call the police whilst he went to shoot at the bathroom door - all this with limited mobility on his stumps, yet not a moment to notice that she was neither in the bed, nor had she responded to his screams to call for help. Also, why would a burglar enter through the bathroom window, but then go into the toilet, instead of out into the bedroom? And if a burglar by chance did do that, it would make sense that said burglar was unarmed and potentially scared themselves. So shooting to kill would definitely look premeditated as described by the prosecution.....

I agree it's all very tragic. But mostly for Reeva and her family

I wasn't actually arguing that she was running away.

Pity it's so hard to follow conversations in this forum. I'm used to forums where you can quote the post you are responding to so that the dialogue stays connected. Here, everything gets all mixed up together.

Even if you believe his "woke up in the middle of the night and panicked" defence, it's not good is it?

He deliberately shot at someone who was trapped in a tiny room with no way out.

His story sounds vaguely plausible. But then it would, there is no-one else to actually offer opposing possibilities - it is his word only...... at the moment. I am surprised her body was released so quickly too, but then what do I know....it just seemed terribly quick, even if there is something vaguely suss here, the coroner takes their time. Although I do live in the Harold Shipman vicinity.

I was really interested in his dad's initial response to it all. He was apparently called to the scene by his son, and said some very strange things early on. "He is fine." This thing about acting "on instinct" if you are a sportsman <they would be baaaad instincts then>. Very aggressive and non-remorseful.

runningforme it's all very logical when you put it like that. But cast your mind to a time that you've woken in the dead of night having heard something. You disorientated and feel fear and confusion (was it a dream?). Now times that fear by 100 (because this is SA where violent crime is rife) and you have no legs to run for help and you've had death threats....

I'm just saying....

None of us knows how we would react in extreme circumstances.

Unfortunately the mentality in some situations in SA is 'shoot first or risk being shot'.

yy Maryz, but with that one the intruder was holding a screwdriver (a weapon) and the homeowner opened the door and was faced with him. I`m just uneasy if it is a case of that you may think there is an intruder behind a door and you shoot more than once, I think there is a difference, lordy it could be anyone and people would surely be shooting all over the place.

The sort of person who would invade somebodies home is surely not likely to run and hide in a toilet, are they?

Especially considering they're likely to be highly aggressive and armed themselves.

Ohto, are you SA living there at the moment? It sounds like a living hell, what is being done about it? Are people really that frightened to go to sleep?

I'm thinking specifically of SA here a many posters have explained it's much more serious in SA (for want of a better word).

I mean the home invasion scenario...sorry, bit tired so not entirely making sense.

Shooting indiscriminately at an unidentified person is generally a really bad idea and very unlikely

It's all very odd. I don't know what to believe.

Poor woman.

Sorry, not cross questioning you Ohto (promise ) but if thats the case are there actually cases of partners shooting the other for going to the toilet in the middle of the night? I dont mean that facetiously

"I woke up to close the sliding door and heard a noise in the bathroom"

Its this stmt from his affidavit that doesn't make sense to me. Who wakes up in the middle of the night to do something? Yes you might wake up because you are thirsty or cold or something, but waking up in the middle of the night specifically to do something? It's weird. It would make sense to say "I woke up and realised the balcony door was open and went to close it", but "I woke up TO CLOSE the sliding door" at 3am is plain strange.

Also its at this point he heard a noise in the bathroom. If I go to sleep in a bed with someone I know if they aren't there when I wake up. Even when we stay somewhere that has a humumgous bed I knew if P wasn't there when I woke at any point.

It reads that when he woke up he heard the noise in the bathroom - surely first instinct is to reach out to feel (if you can't see or don't know) if your partner is there.

It just doesn't sit well in such a carefully thought out statement.

also the following is majorly flawed:
*"I walked back to the bed and realised Reeva was not in bed. Its then it dawned on me it could be her in there.
I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door onto the balcony and screamed for help."*

If he was at the bed, when he realised Reeva wasn't there (having previously said it was pitch black therefore he didn't notice she wasn't in the bed either when he woke up OR returned from closing the door, how is his next action to rush back into the bedroom? Either it's been poorly edited, he is being very poorly advised re the statement, or he's made a big fuck up in his story/coverup.

The gun was supposedly kept under the bed so he would have gone back there to get it - so that's potentially three opportunities (on waking/coming in from closing door/getting gun) to look/feel if she was in the bed he didn't take???

It also looks very much like the balcony door was in the bedroom. So when he woke to close the door, Reeva got up silently (still in the same room as him & balcony door) to use the loo, made her way in the "pitch dark" without turning any lights on through the bedroom and 7m down the hall, closed and locked the door again without him hearing/seeing anything (if she had turned the light on he would have seen that she wasn't in the bed, or seen the hall light), he didn't notice her or hear her doing this, he still thought she was in the bed and shot the 'intruder' in the bathroom?

Either she was in the bathroom when he woke up to close the door and he didn't notice she wasn't in the bed; OR
She got up to go to the bathroom while he was closing the door, and made her way out of bedroom down hall into loo without turning any light on or calling out to him at all - strange?; OR
Perhaps she was hiding from him in the loo? OR????

Reading his statement it just gets worse and worse for him.

Yes, Dreams. I saw that. And the next one was where a teenager shot someone who was holding a gun. But there were, literally, dozens of reports of intruders either being shot or killing people .

I wonder if there had there been a strange man with a gun found in the toilet, would they have arrested him for murder, or would everyone have thought "good thing he had a gun".

I really don't know.

Ohtobe, I have woken in the night before thinking that I have heard something/someone, and my first reaction was to shake DH awake....admittedly I do not live, nor have even ever visited SA, but still, his account lacks plausibility for me for all the reasons I posted about before.....
Oh, and if he was so security conscious, why was his sliding door open all night? Even with a gate over it, it is hardly secure from a gun being put through the bars. And not being the one locked in the toilet, even without his legs, he had the advantage over any intruder. In such an instance, you could fire a warning shot and call the police, not fire 4 times into a small enclosed space.

I think he's counting on his popularity to get away with this.

runningforme he said he screamed for Reeva to call the police AFTER he fired the shots

dreams I'm not there now but grew up there and can confirm that that level of fear is a reality and people go to great lengths to protect themselves. As an earlier poster mentioned, I too have a long list of immediate relatives/friends who have been car-jacked, held at gunpoint, robbed violently and repeatedly. It makes people very cynical. I'm not sure of the up to date stats as I've been away for a few years now but it's not pretty (something like 50 murders a day).

My point is that most people sitting in civilised societies (like the UK) couldn't possibly conceive living like that.

Yes Becool and this "then it dawned on me that it could be her in there"

Really??

Would your first thought be that?? I wouldn't have thought it would cross your mind.

Wouldn't your first thoughts be that she had legged it to a different room on hearing shots, maybe to call the police?

BeCool, the full statement has a lot more detail.

About the sliding doors: "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."

The excerpts being quoted in the papers are very disjointed and only give parts of what the actual statement said.

Also even if Reeva was already in the loo when he woke up, would she do this in the pitch dark? Not turn hall light on?

Btw...this isn't an excuse, just a possible explanation.

beCool does everyone do things the same as everyone else? Some people turn a light on in the night to go for a wee and others don't. I don't (because there's a night light in the hall that casts enough light to see). Maybe there was a street light doing the same? It's hardly conclusive that she didn't turn the light on.

thanks Maryz I didn't realise that was an edit.

"I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom." And still he didn't check for Reeva being in the bed when he went back there to get his gun? Even in a fearful panic you wouldn't have a quick feel to see if P was in bed? Or in the bathroom?

OhToBeCleo I'm not saying anything is conclusive - how on earth could I?
Like everyone else I'm asking questions.

I still think it has glaring holes, by the way.

But it is more plausible than I expected it to be, if that makes sense?

Thanks for answering OhTo, I really wasnt doubting what you were saying, just interested and I guess trying to get my head around how it must be to live like that. People accepting that as the norm, how frightening.

He had apparently previously mistaken his washing machine for an intruder.

BeCool I am just going by his reported statement as printed on the guardian's website.....

"I heard a noise and realised that someone was in the bathroom. 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.

"I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on. 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."

He went on: "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.

"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 believe 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.

"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.

"When I reached the bed, I realised Reeva was not in the bed....."

If this is an accurate report of his statment, then I stand by what I said.

I can see how it is plausable, but I just cant get my head around shooting through a closed door.

If I came back into a bedroom, hearing noises in my ensuite, my first thought would be that it was my partner, going to the toilet, as is surely usual at night. Why on earth would you think your partner wasn't going to the toilet, even if they had been in the bed previously, this is normal behaviour not some weird thing. I also feel less than convinced by the 'instinct' thing, given he had been out, got a fan in and so had definitely woken up. Finally, surely your first thought, if you are in a room with your loved one and you think there is an intruder, you would ascertain if they were ok, whisper, 'can you hear that' or 'are you ok?' before going to confront them. I just don't think anyone would fail to protect their loved one or check they were ok first, or even wonder how you were going to push them out of the way/check they were out of the line of fire, or shout a warning to them if you genuinely thought there was a gunman in the house.

It all stinks to me, sorry.

He keeps saying he was too scared to turn on a light, even after he'd fired the shots. That doesn't make sense to me either.

I think the main point to consider (when analysing his reactions) is context. It's impossible to judge how he reacted by how we (in a relatively safe country) would react in a similar circumstance. And that's not even taking into consideration the lack of legs.

OK this quote is from his full statement "It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed."

So in the pitch dark he got up, went to get fan from balcony, sorted curtains & blinds, closed door AND Reeva got up to use loo, made her way out of the bedroom and down the hall to the loo without saying anything to him. It is so pitch dark he couldn't see if she was in bed or not, but he found his gun OK.

That's a lot of action in the pitch dark.

he goes on to say after the shooting:

"Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding. When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed"

So he could see she wasn't in the bed when he returned to the bedroom after shooting, (without turning the light on), but he couldn't see she wasn't in the bed when he went to get the gun, or possibly when he woke up.

It could be a case of the truth being stranger than fiction, or it could be bullshit. We need the forensics.

I can't get my head round shooting through a bathroom door to kill an intruder OR a partner.

Either scenario just seems bizarre.

yeah sorry Running I didn't realise the quote upthread was an edit (damn iPhone ) . I've called in the laptop now

This whole 'it was too dark to see she wasn't in the bed" defence seems such nonsense to me if he had enough light to faff about with balcony doors and then find his gun. I have never been in a room, even with black out curtains, that is so dark at night you can't see if a person is in bed.

IF it really was that dark as others have said, you'd have a quick feel on their side of the bed whilst retrieving your gun under it.

hellsbells I thought that too, but then it occurred to me maybe he thought the 'intruder' wasn't alone, which if what he is saying is true, would be plausible.

I can also accept that he was very fearful as intruders/robberies etc in SA are commonplace (as many here have reported) and often are very violent attacks. We can't necessarily fathom that here, but need to accept that life is different in SA to UK.

What I'm having trouble with is all the action in pitch dark, not seeing her out of the bed when he went to get the gun, and then realising she wasn't in bed after the shooting - all in the 'pitch dark' with no light on.

I also think that if it was that dark questions need to be asked why Reeva didn't use lights when she went to the loo - bedside light, hall light, bathroom light all must have been possibilities. If she knew he was up and on balcony then she might have used the bedroom light too. It seems none of these were on - if they were he would have known for sure she was up. Yet it was 'pitch dark' and two people, a resident and a guest, are moving around the house doing stuff.

To change the topic a bit, what do you think about his sobbing in court?

Obviously if his version is the true one, its understandable. But if he did deliberately murder her.... is he faking it? Genuinely remorseful after the act? Feeling sorry for himself?

Just wondering what people make of it in relation to whether they think he's guilty or not.

I think he's truly sorry, whether he did it accidentally or on purpose. I have done many things in anger which I have felt sorry about almost immediately afterwards when the adrenaline has gone. He's probably also very scared at the consequences.

I think it is possible to glance at a bed and make a mistake about whether a person is in it, if the duvet is bunched up and from a certain angle. This is not what he claimed, but I'm sure I've thought my husband was in bed when he wasn't.

I am more mystified by why he didn't check with her first to establish where she was (given partner going to the toilet is a usual activity), why he didn't realise it was her in the bathroom til his sudden thought (how come she made no noise when shot or dying?) and why, if it was truly accidental, he phoned his dad and best friend before the ambulance when her life was ebbing away, that must have taken several minutes.

I don't think premeditated murder means he was planning it for weeks!

why, if it was truly accidental, he phoned his dad and best friend before the ambulance

How do we know this?

I want him to be telling the truth. I guess because a tragic accident is somehow slightly easier to take than the idea that he is some kind of deranged lunatic who was battering his girlfriend. However, I have so many doubts about his version of events. So much of it doesn't make sense. I think he probably did it deliberately in the heat of the moment and regretted it instantly.

We don't know who he rang first, the newspapers seem to have not got that straight.

We don't know how quickly he shot the shots, again the newspapers are giving garbled details - with an automatic weapon, you could fiire four shots in a second.

There are many things we don't know.

And, I agree that the tears will be genuine, whether he shot her on purpose or not - either way, his life is a wreck

I agree Merry - even if he did do it in a fit of spontaneous rage, he could very well, and understandably be shocked, horrified and remorseful about it. To be completely cynical, this shock, horror and remorse could well stem from the dreadful situation his life is now in as a result of his actions, if not a genuine response to the fact he had killed his girlfriend. Either way he's fucked his life up.

Maryz from his full statement:

"I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom. I phoned Johan 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."

Oscar was advised to drive her to the hospital himself rather than waiting for an ambulance. It seems Stander and a local doctor arrived very quickly. So phoning for help locally, though initially strange, looked like the 'right' decision after all. Sadly Reeva was beyond help.

"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 on to the balcony and screamed for help. 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."

It all happened in the dark! I don't get this part of it at all. The initial balcony action, Reeva getting up & going to the loo, getting the gun from under the bed, going to the bathroom, shooting the toilet door and Reeva, running back to the bed, going back to the bathroom, going back to the bedroom, going onto the balcony to call for help, putting on prosthetic legs, running back to bathroom, kicking door - all happened in 'pitch dark'.

The stories of him crying like he has been, reminds me of the Philpotts when they were on tv. Genuine, heavy emotional tears, but who knows the reason behind them till guilty or innocent is decided? Grief, guilt, regret, shock? Who knows.

I don't feel sorry for his tears, or for him. I feel sorry for the woman who is no longer alive for whatever the true reason may be. I also feel for her family who must be gutted at losing her

Well, to be a little more accurate, it would have been light when she got up, as he was out on the balcony and had not yet closed the curtains.

So again, we don't know whether it is feasible.

But I agree about the calling for help - where he is obviously local security is quicker than calling 999 as we would here.

I've just been having a conversation with a friiend in SA about this (not the friend who knows OP personally - another one).

Interestingly, people in SA don't buy the "I thought it was an intruder" line, but an interesting point he made was, "the scary thing is, if this is his reaction to hearing a partner or wife or such moving around his bathroom, it's a wonder he's never killed someone before." This can't be the first time he's spent the night with someone who's got up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, surely? yet this is the first time he fired four shots at the door....?

There's something that doesn't make sense about this and I can't put my finger on it.

I daren't say this for fear of flaming but is it possible that OP was indeed defending himself... not against a burglar but ...? it does happen...

He said "it was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed". If there was enough light from the balcony/open curtains for her to see to go to the loo, why couldn't he see she wasn't in bed?

Perhaps it's an incredibly huge bedroom and the light from balcony (if there was one) didn't reach as far as the bed?

I also want to know if it has an ensuite, or just the loo down the hall?

This rugby player she's apparently friendly with is the spitting image of OP.

why was his bedroom door locked? hadnt he just come from his bedroom?

is he a bit thick? if he is one of those illogical no common-sense type of people then his version of events could be true. Ive known people that jump to really odd seeming conclusions and read situations differently to how 99% of people would.....the not checking the bed to find out if Reeva was there/ just not assuming that Reeva had gone for a waz

It doesnt explain why she apparently didnt communicate with him at any point though

wrt the gun, if you live in a place where you have the need for a gun, you would know where it is, exactly, so you could reach it if needed - even in the dark.

This is his house, he will be familliar with it, surely? after all it was only the bedroom area. is it that implausible that he wouldn't be able to make his way around the bedroom in the dark?

Sunrise today in J'burg is 5.56am so there wouldn't be any natural light from the sun in the early hours. There may have been some moonlight from a half moon.

YY becool Id have flipped the lights on, for sure

i go to the bathroom in the dark, but if i thought i heard someone, i mean

he did a lot more than make his way around the bedroom wannabe, and in a blind panic it would seem too.

My understanding is that light is coming in through the window. He goes out to balcony. While he is gone, she gets up. He comes in, doesn't even look at bed, shuts curtains (so it's now dark). He then hears noise .... etc.

Again, odd but plausible.

Also, if bathroom window is open, there would be light coming in there, so she could see to walk to toilet, but bedroom would still be dark.

Again, plausible.

Everything's plausible. It will be interesting to see what is provable.

You wouldn't flip the light on if you thought there was someone down a corridor with a gun.

"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."

He says he was verbally alerting the 'intruders' and yelling for Reeva to call the police. Why not then try to wake her when he was at the bed getting the gun and tell her to call the police?

The prosecution are going to rip him to shreds. If he didn't intend to kill her he's got a lot of work to do to prove it. He missed so many opportunities to try and wake her and/or see she wasn't in the bed.

Why would she lock the bathroom door?

i would, and have maryz...i made as much noise as possible and turned all the lights on and fled to a room where I could lock myself in.

OP was shouting at the 'intruder' so its not as if he was trying to sneak away un-noticed

Maryz why do you think there was light coming into the house from outside? I can't see any mention of it in his statement? He only refers to the bedroom being pitch dark.

The house is very big and from the images I've seen it doesn't look like there are any street lights on the road out front. There is a field out the back. Lots of big trees. the neighbours on one side only have small windows facing his house. Do you think they went to sleep with the balcony light on, curtains not drawn, so the light is shining into the bedroom? That is odd but possible I guess but it's not mentioned anywhere I've seen.

I wouldn't have turned the light on. You know your house inside out - if you thought you had an intruder you're better with the lights off as you're at a massive advantage because you know your way around.

why was the bedroom door locked?

did he lock it behind him after he got the gun? to protect Reeva, who he thought was in bed?

I know I keep banging on about the bloody ensuite, but do you not think such a palatial modern home would have one? Check out the pictures of the place - I would think it have ensuite and dressing room!!!

Is there one? and if so why didn't Reeva go to the loo in the ensuite????

Gozer do you think Reeva would have known the place inside out?

some people in SA do lock internal doors at night precisely because if an intruder were to break in they are more protected. of course, if there's a fire they are screwed but that's another issue. But on the whole all internal doors in SA have locks and keys.

If OP was the paranoid sort (and judging by his guns etc it would appear he was) then it's entirely plausible that he would lock his bedroom door at night. As for the balcony door, well who knows really, it was the night before valentines, his GF was staying over, they didn't live together and were in a fairly new relationship, it's possible they went to bed, had sex, (balcony door still open as it was hot, remember it's been in the upper 30's in SA for the past few weeks), then fell asleep. and that he woke up and realised it was open so got up to close it.

He is paranoid. paranoid enough to lock his bedroom door at night. He went to sleep having taken a risk beyond the norm, and as he is paranoid, when he hears a noise he suddenly thinks "I left the door open, I don't usually because well, anything can happen," then he looks into the bathroom and sees the unsecured window is open... puts two and two together and comes up with five.

Re. the light- plenty of hotels have bathrooms with automatic lights that flick on when they sense movement. Not completely off the wall that this plush mansion has something similar. Could account for the a) his attention being brought to the bathroom, and b) enough light to see what he's doing in the ensuite but not in the bedroom.

I'm not defending him, no fan of his. But still I can almost relate to the moment of being half awake, hearing a noise and suddenly realising that you haven't shut a door or window, and fuck, those contractors left their ladders at that side of the house; the links being made in your fuzzy mind.

I imagine that the bathroom is en suite, in a sense, but not directly next to the bedroom as there is mention of a passage between the two. Perhaps the "passage" is more like a dressing room, with the bathroom & loo beyond. Then there is a separate exit from the bedroom which was the one that was locked

That's plausable wannabe

The prosecution say that the bathroom in question was 6 meters down a passageway - does this place it outside of the bedroom in that case? Does the passageway lead just to the bathroom (effectively an ensuite then) or is it a passageway leading to the bedroom from the main house with the bathroom off it?

Reading this again, it sounds like the bathroom as ensuite - " 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."

If it is an ensuite I can imagine the terror could be even more ramped up - a possible intruder in such close quarters. But if he is that paranoid re security he would have surely closed the windows in the ensuite (and in the bathroom down the hall even) before going to bed? Paranoids I've known are very good at checking the things that make them feel unsafe before they are able to relax enough to sleep for example.

Then again, if it is an ensuite its an even great reason to check it's not your girlfriend simply going to the loo, when you had ample opportunity to do this by reaching out to feel her in the bed as you sorted the gun out, even though you cant see her due to pitch black. If he really thought she was in bed, why didn't he reach out to shake her awake once he had the gun, to tell her to call the police?

Another question, he has a huge home - why does he keep a cricket bat in his bedroom? Defensive weapon perhaps? It seems a strange place to keep a cricket bat though - I bet he has a whole room to keep sport kit etc.

that's it I think onlymeee - I got there eventually!!

did he say he kept it in the bedroom though? he could have gone to get it once he realised the door was locked and he needed to break it down.

Having said that, given the man slept with a presumably loaded gun under his bed I think a cricket bat isn't that far from the norm.

We lived in a super secure estate and locked the door at the top of the stairs every night. We were not paranoid but the door had a lock on it so we locked it.

so he locks the bedroom door (out of habit perhaps) so they are locked in, it seems the key isn't in the door else he would have been able to leave easily and it wouldn't be adding to his fear as he claims. He leaves balcony door open though (for breeze on hot night - OK) AND leaves the ensuite bathroom window open when there is scaffolding outside (simply forgetful?).

He wakes up, goes to balcony, then when he hears a noise in bathroom he instantly remembers about open windows and scaffolding, and paranoia kick in. The thought that Reeva is going to the toilet doesn't enter his mind.

He assumes Reeva is in bed X minutes before, but doesn't know this as it's dark (he's never said he saw her in bed when he initially got up). In the meantime Reeva has silently awoken and gone to use the bathroom in the dark.

what noise did he hear from the bathroom - if she's gone in there silently she wasn't being loud. She's possibly being considerate not turing lights on or making any noise so not to wake him. If so then she didn't know he was up? Did he hear her peeing or flushing loo - what burglar would do that? What other noises might a considerate quiet pee taker make in the loo in the middle of the night that might sound like an intruder rather than someone using the toilet?

It's pitch dark. Rather than thinking it's Reeva in the loo and checking if she is in bed as he goes to the bed to get his gun, he gets gun and simply fires blindly at locked toilet door in a paranoid panic. FFS! Shooting the person you love out of plain stupidity?

yes he said he went back to the bedroom and grabbed his cricket bat.

Houses in this type of estate may well have huge master suites rather than what we would think of as an ensuite. Our dressing room in SA was bigger than our UK bedroom and ensuite combined. OP's house looks a lot bigger and fancier than ours was.

ah, i see....locked in the bedroom....rather than he had left the bedroom to go to the bathroom nd he was locked out of the bedroom

the only way it would wash for me, is if he had his gun in his hand all the time and had shot in that first panic striken moment.

i cant see that in going back to the bedroom to get your gun (with no burgular type action ensuing from the toilet) it wouldnt have occured to him that it might be Reeva

unless he is incredibly incredibly stupid.

Here's a link to his full affidavit presented at his bail hearing yesterday.

www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/130219oscar_papers.pdf

I' can't remember if this has been mentioned but how did he know the door was locked (according to his account). At what p

Sorry iPhone...
At what point did he try and open the door with a handle before breaking it down? If his story is to be believed (and I do think it's plausible) then when he went to the bathroom to check out who was there he had no idea if the door was locked or not. It was pitch dark so he couldn't see if the lock was turned or not? Only way he would know it was locked was of he was there when the person went in the room and heated them lock it which isn't consistent with his account...

Maybe I missed it in the full affidavit?

Heard the lock... Not heated

Ok ignore me it says in his affidavit that he did try to open the door before forcing entry. I don't know what to believe

Wow I can't believe the full affidavit is available on the net.

Not sure what I think. I have thought until now guilty, that's based on media reports.

After reading that I think possibly plausible. Massive questions but plausible...I suppose that's the intention though isn't it?

I also think someone very close to him who was at the scene immediately after is leaking negative information re the cricket bat being covered in blood.

I think in order to fully understand his description of events you'd need to know the layout of the room.

I agree about the leaks. I also think strategically, it was a sensible move to publish the full affidavit, as - as we have seen over the past few days - there has been a lot of speculative media reporting, and likewise the snippets from the affidavit published live yesterday didn't give the full context.

Wait to see what comes to light today. Was this a 'mistake' or was it something more intentional?

Wasn't it the bathroom door, not the bedroom door that was locked?

i wouldnt want to be the neighbour/witness in court today.

Is it just me or is the first thing you do when you hear a scary, might be an intruder noise, is shake you DP and say "DP, DP, there's someone in the house"? Maybe telling them to hide, or get to safety or call the police or something?

I appreciate he was out of the bed and she was in it (in his view), but still.......

Sounds a load of crock to me!

So he went out in the dark to fetch a fan-hence not seeing that she wasn´t in bed?

Workmen had left ladders up?

Really-and he´s so paranoid about intruders??

Just read that if OP is denied bail and goes to a remand prison, he will probably have his prosthetic legs taken away as they could be used as weapons and will have to use a wheelchair.

I wonder if this will constitute the "exceptional circumstances" required to allow bail.

Remember, people on remand have not been found guilty of any crime. Yet.

Yes catgirl a lot of people would shake DP but if, say he has a super king bed and he hasn't got his prosthesis on so is pretty short at that time he won't have a very clear view of Reeva's side. It might be difficult for him to climb up/on bed to get tO her side and shake her and in the heat of the moment decides its best to sort out the "intruder".

I want to point out I don't know what to believe but am trying to look objectively at both sides.

The above point is in relation to when he went back to the bed to get his gun

FYI There's a live feed of the proceedings this morning {{http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2013/feb/20/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-day-two-live-coverage here]]. At the moment they're saying that given the location of the wounds, she would not have been sitting on the loo but 'hiding' in a different position.

Sorry, link fail here

What he's saying is plausible I suppose

But it sounds very odd in places

I've been following the guardian live feed too. Can't link as on phone.

Not looking good for him at all.

I have an awful vision of the poor girl hiding in there from him tbh.

Don´t know why as I don´t know him.

Just seems odd to me that his first thought on hearing someone in the bathroom is that it´s an intruder.

And if he is so worried-why aren´t all windows barred, for example?

Also, it´s the fact that whoever it was was locked in the bathroom-& therefore no threat?

"Just seems odd to me that his first thought on hearing someone in the bathroom is that it´s an intruder."

As said on this thread and the last, by wannabe and I - that's how South Africans think now after 20+ years of living in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the world.

but then this is just an application for bail, the actual court hearing wont be for some months, remember

But he didn't know the bathroom door was locked, surely. How would you know that just by seeing a closed door? He realised afterwards that it was locked but, at the time, whoever he believed was in there, could appear at any moment.

A neighbour will be giving evidence on hearing "constant fighting" between 2 and 3am, according to the Guardian feed.

Having grown up in SA (in Joburg actually) and then moved to the UK, I think it is very difficult, if not impossible for people in the UK to understand what it's like to live in a city with a crime problem like Joburg. When I was a kid, there were police helicopters circling the neighbourhood with search lights every evening, as there had been so many car jackings at peoples' houses when they came home from work (and this was a naice suburb, not a dodgy neighbourhood).
I know many people who have been broken into (even in closed neighbourhoods) and been held hostage for hours as armed burglars rampage through the house. In my family alone, my grandmother was robbed 4 times, one time she came home to a man brandishing a knife at her. My aunt and uncle's house has been broken into numerous times, my cousin held up at gunpoint at work on two occassions (and the robbers came back a few weeks later, just to walk around) and her best friend was brutally raped and murdered. Sadly, stories like these are not exceptional. People have lived for 20+ years in that city with the ongoing fear of random violence. British people can't even begin to comprehend that - all houses have burglar guards, high walls, armed response units. Restaurants aren't open after past 10 (there was one time when armed hold ups in restaurants was very common) adn you don't walk around on your own at night. At one stage the police had to walk around in gangs of at least 4, as they kept on being robbed and having their guns stolen.

SA had 15,940 intentional homicides in 2012. By comparison, the UK had 722. There are around 20 million fewer people in SA.

reeva was dressed when she died and an overnight bag was found downstairs. looks like she never made it to bed

i read the overnight bag was found in the bedroom, on the couch.

yes my mistake it was by a bed

And to be fair, shorts and a vest top could be nightwear.

I've just the guardian news feed too

It doesn't look good for him at all

Two bottles of testosterone and needles found in his house. Even if he was cleared he has ruined his own reputation anyway.

We shall have to see. If the neighbour heard fighting between them then the intruder theory is not likely. If you are in bed with a woman and you hear a noise most people would first check it was not their partner.

Also would you really lock the door in the night if you think your boyfriend is asleep and you are just urinating? Why would she lock the door?

wouldnt he be allowed testosterone?

A few things are odd about his statement. Firstly I don't believe it was so pitch black that he didn't notice his girlfriend wasn't in the bed at all these different points. Firstly he would have noticed if was there when he got up to get the fan and slide the balcony door back. He said he then heard a noise from the bathroom so went to investigate, saying nothing to his beloved to warn her, and on his way screamed at the "intruder" to get out of his house. I find it im

I don't buy his story that he thought there was an intruder especially after reading that the neighbours reportedly heard screams .

He must have known who was behind that door because that poor girl would have been screaming for her life.

I believe he is as guilty as hell .

Anya - Reeva was in shorts and a vest top, its hot in SA at this time of year

Well said Absy, if people commenting here have not lived or even been to SA they have no idea how common place and the at what level of violence that occurs this is not the leafy home counties we are talking about.

Intruders are armed, their life prospects are poor, many are high on Tic and think if there is security in place be it burglar bars on windows or razor wire there must be something worth stealing.

Some understanding of the context is essential IMHO.

...whoops....

Implausible that she wouldn't have shouted from wherever she was "what's going on?!" Or something similar. So even if he honestly thought she was still in bed then he surely must have expected to hear her shout from the bedroom. If she was in the bathroom then she must definitely have heard him scream and said "it's just me, Oscar".

Also, if she just got up for a wee after he went on the balcony as he now reckons must have happened, wouldn't she have wondered where HE was? And said something to that effect? Especially if she heard someone out there moving the fan etc.

Why would she lock the bathroom door if she had just nipped for a wee?

There are far too many ridiculous things in his story that don make sense.

The case against him looking pretty convincing now. I wish it wasn't as don't want to believe it. Gun shots fired downwards thru door indicating he had legs on (not what he said), reeva hit on rhs indicating she was not sitting on loo but hiding facing other way, and 2 bottles of testosterone and needles found at his house.

YESTERDay was the defence, Today is the prosecution.

this is the application for Bail.

Murder rates per 100,000 of population:
- United Kingdom 1.5 (from last year of data, 2009 but it's been about the same since 2000)
- United States 4.8
- South Africa 31.8

The murder rate in SA is around twenty one times higher than the UK.

Do any of you saying "why did he think it was an intruder?" see why South Africans are a bit jittery?

as far as i could read from the affidavit he is saying Reeva got up whilst he was out on the balcony i.e. he got up knowing she was in bed then when he came in from the balcony he heard a noise in the bathroom and therefore thought it wasn't Reeva.
did i read that wrong?

just seen the room layout on the guardian feed its quite a distance from the balcony and down a 'corridor'. i think the layout makes his description less plausible.

also the guardian feed is suggesting the shots were fired at 'normal height'

Doesn't look good for OP - big holes in his defence.

How long before someone makes a film of his life do you reckon?

The BBC twitter feed is also interesting.

As well as the trajectory of the bullets being from a normal height, showing he had taken the time to put his prosthetic legs on, it is being reported that witnesses heard 'non-stop shouting, like fighting' for an hour before the gunshots.

Of course, the reason people want to believe him, or at least find his story plausible, is that the alternative is that he murdered her in cold blood, or in a violent temper, while she was cowering in the toilet.

Nobody wants to believe that of their sporting heroes.

keep an open mind has to be the only way

From The Guardian feed:-

Botha says he found a holster for the gun on the same side of the bed where he found the overnight bag and slippers (presumably implying that was the side on which Steenkamp was sleeping).

If that's right it blows his story out of the water.

I think it´s odd that she locked the toilet door-especially as it appears to be a room within a room iyswim.

Yes, he didn´t know that the door was locked-but also if a person is h´behind a door-are they a threat to you?

I suppose I also don´t get the going to look for the intruder with a gun.

Surely the intention from then on is to shoot?

And yes, I say that as someone who has never lived in SA.

Just a whole lot of little doubts just add up to one big question mark - there just seems to be a lot of little things that aren't adding up to verify OP's story

His defence is doing a good job by the sounds of that live feed

If I was on the toilet and someone tried to open the door I'd call out and say 'I'm in here' or something wouldn't you? Lots of things don't add up.

I've just seen on the Daily Mail that one of the cartridges was found in the bedroom and the other 3 in the bathroom. Also that the toilet was hit, which wouldn't happen if you just shot straight ahead even on stumps, which would mean whether he thought it was Reeva or not he intended to kill whoever was in that bathroom.

she locked herself in the bathroom because of the intruder, according to his defense.

Well all my family in SA live behind security, with armed guards.

All my SA friends have installed lockable wire mesh screens in their homes, on the landings.

They lock these every night, and even when they work at home.

So, for me, it's entirely plausible that he shot her thinking it was an intruder.

She may have locked the loo door out of habit for her own security, or because she wanted a private poo.

The same social context as the UK should not be applied. SA is a very violent country, and the murder rate is really high. Violent crime is so commonplace.

And let's not forget that OP is disabled [edited by MNHQ], with reduced mobility - literally a sitting duck. He may well have been half asleep, or had a few glasses of wine.

Not excusing him, but keeping it all in context, I don't think this was a domestic violence murder.

And I feel sorry for them all. Especially the families. As far as I can see, everyone is broken hearted.

Well it´s pretty obvious that they would say she locked the door because of an intruder.

But how is that even admissible as she can´t be asked?

My friends from SA who live in Europe I mean - they all have had screens installed on the upstairs landings in their homes here. Fear is a habit, even though the crime rate in the UK is so low compared to SA.

I'm following the live feed too - defence lawyer is doing a great job!

His defence lawyer did a great job. The neighbour who heard the shouting was 600m away from OP's house, there were no other injuries or defence marks, her bladder was empty, there were no banned drugs etc. He made the police investigator look a bit incompetent.

Why does it matter that most people on here don't lock the door when they go to the loo? Some people do - or plausibly might - and that's all that matters.

Also, OP did not know the door was locked. How would he without trying the handle? For all he knew the "intruder" could open the door and shoot him at any moment.

I'm just saying what the defence will say.

I've just read the live feed too.

The whole thing makes such sad reading.

I must say, though, that the police haven't (as far as I can see produced any evidence of the things they "leaked" - the arguments, the previous DV etc, the fact that he rang his brother first etc. Whereas the defence lawyer is certainly finding a few holes in the prosecution theory.

They didn't even check if he rang the hospital ffs.

And the policeman didn't arrive until 4.15. whereas the hospital had been rung at 3.20. That seems a long gap.

In fairness to the police officer, when he's arrived at the scene, he's clearly seen so many things that add up to cold blooded murder. The scene would have suggested extreme violence - the bullet holes in the broken down door, blood, cricket bat etc. etc. He's already said the ballistics haven't yet been confirmed but he's basing his opinion on his experience. The theory that OP was standing, with his prosthetics on, shooting from the basin down into the toilet has yet to be shown as fact as the investigation doesn't appear to have concluded yet. He hasn't explained/taken into account the cartridge that was outside the bathroom/at the door etc. Granted, the evidence he's gathered so far in his opinion suggests cold blooded murder, and they have to enter a view early on as to the seriousness of the charge against OP. However, from the defence's cross examination, it seems he's made the 'rookie' mistake of ignoring some evidence that doesn't fit his theory, rather than take in everything and then work out from there what might have happened. Which does seem bad form for an experienced police investigater. The 'steriods' aren't steriods as such i.e. not a banned or illegal substance. He's not checked with the security base whether OP phoned them for help. Not spoken to the 1st person OP would have spoken to, following the shooting? That is seriously shoddy investigating IMO. Not checked phone records yet. He hasn't given much thought to Reeva having an empty bladder - did they check the loo to see if it had been flushed or not? The witness evidence about shouting/gun shots seems unclear as well - over 600 m away, can't identify the voices, got number of shots wrong.

As much as I don't personally have much sympathy with OP as he has killed an innocent woman, I'm not as convinced by the police's evidence or their interpretation of that evidence so far. I can certainly see why they have come to the conclusion they have, but I am not convinced it'll stick/prove premeditated murder. Unless they have witness evidence that suggests a violent history (and so far there has been a lot of specualtion but not much in the way of actual facts re this) coupled with Reeva confiding in someone that the relations wasn't working/she was concerned/scared/wanting out etc. I think they will struggle to make their case.

And let's not forget that OP is a cripple - WTF? Cripple? Really?

Her bladder was empty. That's very telling.

The defence are annihilating the prosecutions case. Maybe he'll get bail today.

Reading the Guardian feed, I'm amazed that the defence has been able to expose the weaknesses in the prosecution case so easily. I thought they had more than that.

A witness who is 600m away is pointless.

well no doubt both sides will have plenty of time to Make a case, as this wont go to court for ages, so they say.

Please dont call an amputee a `cripple` it is highly offensive.

What grounds would they have, based on a rather unimpressive prosecution, to deny bail?

Would his disability be a consideration at all in choosing house arrest over jail?

I suppose there is the slightest chance that she went to the loo after being woken up by him on the balcony, knowing it was him out there shuttig it all up but they havent actually seen each or spoken to each other. He assumes she's still in bed but then in a split second Lets say he genuinely hears a noise from the bathroom and imagines that it must be an intruder who woke him up coming through the balcony 5 mins earlier.

He goes to where the noise is coming from screaming for Reeva to call the police. She is in the toilet and hearing this, is terrified and locks the toilet door and cowers behind it, scared to say anything at all, assuming that OP has confronted an intruder and the danger is where OP is. It all happens so fast and OP assumes its the intruder who is locked in the bathroom otherwise Reeva would say if it was her in there. Unless he actually says the words "Reeva, call the police - there is an intruder hiding in the toilet", to give her the opportunity to reassure him that its just her, then there is a slight chance that she was too scared to say anything which led him to believe that it MUST be an intruder.

So it will all have to hinge on the evidence now for me rather than saying "it doesn't add up- how he's said it happened by mistake,". It COULD have happened so he won't get convicted on that basis.

I doubt he's a flight risk or a danger to the public. Possibly a danger to himself, of course...

It seems bizarre that they have to put forward their evidence without finishing the investigation. It happened less than a week ago. The angle of the bullets and whether or not he was wearing his legs will be crucial as its a big height difference.

It also shows how much you can't believe what's written in the press. Steroids? bloodied cricket bat? Who he called first?

i am glad I didnt read the papers. you can't believe what you read in some of them, obviously

Sorry to be really graphic but it is my understanding that a person voids their bladder and bowels shortly after death, so the bladder argument seems a bit of a red herring?

The problem with any case at this point is that each side will present their arguments as fact and will dismiss the other side's as fiction/mistake.

Curly that could work re showing he didn't intend to kill Reeva. However I don't think it would work as a defence for killing an invisible unknown and in fact imagined, intruder. He clearly intended to kill whoever was in the bathroom. Would a claim of self defence work when he never even saw anyone? Any actual threat to him was purely imagined.

I also think the fact that he went to bed/sleep with both bedroom balcony door open and his bathroom window open drastically weakens any claim of paranoia about intruders.

I think if she had locked herself in after hearing OP scream that there was an intruder she'd probably be as quiet as possible because she wouldn't want the intruders to know where she was. And if she then heard him shouting for the intruder to "get out" she wouldn't know he was shouting at the toilet door, so wouldn't respond.

I do think the empty bladder is hugely important evidence. Bladders begin to fill up again almost as soon as they are emptied. It's very likely that she did have a wee while in that toilet - NOT something you would do if you were cowering behind the door in fear of your life. Unless she wet herself through fear. What an awful thought. Poor Reeva

Floorplan of bedroom/bathroom

"It seems bizarre that they have to put forward their evidence without finishing the investigation."

This is only a bail hearing. Neither side would have all their evidence prepared for a full trial at this point. The evidence required to grant/refuse bail has a far lower threshold than that required for a conviction/acquittal.

I also think the fact that he went to bed/sleep with both bedroom balcony door open and his bathroom window open drastically weakens any claim of paranoia about intruders

Yes, I thought this. If you are so scared of intruders that you panic at the sight of an open window, why go to sleep with the balcony doors open?

"the bladder argument seems a bit of a red herring"
I agree, but all the defence have to show is reasonable doubt. They don't have to prove she took a pee, just that she could have. Forensics should show if there is urine on the floor or in the toilet? - if she didn't flush it.

Panda, I think they addressed that in the evidence given in the feed. Something like "empty bladder with no evidence of <I can't remember the words, but voiding or something?>"

God it's all so horrible

might he get bail?

With what has been heard in court today his version seems slightly more plausible IMO. She had an empty bladder, there was no evidence of self defence wounds or a physical fight beforehand and the investigating officer admitted there is no forensic evidence to disprove his claim that it was an accident. That is huge.

Hmmm..... On second thoughts after what I posted last... It can't have all happened that suddenly. If he had to get the gun from the side of the bed I'm pretty sure he must have had time to notice at that point if she was in the bed or not. Surely if you're grabbing a gun then that's the point where you shake your partner awake and tell them to stay there and call the police. If he couldn't possibly have AVOIDED seeing that she wasn't in bed then surely he must have realised she was elsewhere in the house and would be shouting to check where he was/ if she was ok first?

Just read this bit on the live feed Roux says Botha has no evidence Pistorius attached his prosthetic legs before the shooting. Botha admits that is the case. The evidence hasn't yet been established that OP was standing, yet the police officer is stating this as fact despite having no evidence that this is the case yet. Bizarre. The defence is now getting him to concede there is no evidence at all yet of where OP was, if he was standing, the angle of the shots etc. They are also stating that OP's investigators found a bullet in the toilet bowl after the police had already scoured the scene. Bloody hell, the police are not coming across well at all.

So they didn't find testosterone? Just a herbal remedy? So the prosecution is leaking lies to the media? You don't do that if you have a solid case.

I find it interesting that this is just the bail hearing, not the trial, yet the case appears to be being tried already. Loads of information is pouring out, accurate or not, and I fail to see how a fair trial can now be carried out.

the victim was cremated yesterday, so let's hope a proper post-mortem was done as there's now no possibility of reviewing the evidence.

"the investigating officer admitted there is no forensic evidence to disprove his claim that it was an accident"

I don't think he went that far did he?

Surely it's the (very expensive, very skilled) defence attorney's job to only put points to the investigating officer at this stage that he knows the prosecution cannot prove conclusively yet?

I remember hearing that OP was taken to hosital the night of the incident (after arrest) for toxicology testing so, presumably, things like steroids will show up in the results

"So they didn't find testosterone? Just a herbal remedy? So the prosecution is leaking lies to the media? You don't do that if you have a solid case."

No the defence are claiming it is a herbal remedy, just as the prosecution are claiming it's testosterone.

I think the prosecution is flawed. More flawed than the defences' version of events.

It doesn't help when junior prosecutors are saying "we're in terrible trouble".

At the moment it looks like the section 6 premeditated charge will be downgraded. Although they may have something else yet.

I think it's interesting that a large amount of the information that's being used to base the case against OP on, has yet to be verified by the various test results/investigations etc. Like Nancy says, the blood tests taken immediately afterwards. The ballistics tests, forensics, phone records etc. There are massive holes that will need to be filled with this information, but it's bizarre having all this poured over, at this stage, for the bail hearing alone. It really is like they are trying the case now, instead of just considering whether the case is serious enough to mean remand or bail.

It is odd though that OP made no mention of a house in Italy and an offshore account when he claimed he would not be a flight risk.

Please note that this is only the bail hearing, not the actual murder trial.

PandaWatch on the Guardian's live news feed it says "Botha admits he couldn't find anything at the crime scene inconsistent with Pistorius accidental shooting version of events"

The SA police are looking like bumbling fools.

Missing one of the bullets that was in the toilet??? I dread to think what the rest of their forensic investigation is like - for the truth to come out and the actual story of the night to be told and believed (whatever that story is), accurate and reliable forensics will be essential.

As Panda says its the defence attorneys job only to ask certain questions to discredit the police. There will be a lot more to come in the trial and by then, hopefully for all concerned, a clear forensic picture will have been revealed by credible evidence.

One thing that I find strange is Reeva's apparent silence.

O.P. goes out on to balcony to get a fan and close sliding doors. Presumably this makes a noise. If this is what wakes Reeva, wouldn't she call out, 'Oscar, is that you?'

Or, if she hears the noise and fears it might be an intruder, wouldn't she feel to see if O.P. is in bed so she can wake him up and say, 'Did you hear that noise?' Then, finding he's not in bed, wouldn't she call out as above?

Please note that this is only the bail hearing, not the actual murder trial.

Exactly notmydog and already the prosecution are floundering on their *rock solid" case of pre meditation.

Yes, the police are looking good. Walked across the evidence without shoe covers. Missed the bullet in the toilet. Apparently no Italian house. Shouting was OP's allegedly not his girl friend. They are making mincemeat of Botha at present. I suspect very secure bail with very very limited movement allowed might be fairer.

Bumbling. I'm agog really. The scrutiny on this, the need to do things absolutely by the book. Happy to be corrected if wrong, I get the sense they (the police) are out to get him, and this is a 'perfect excuse'. That's not justice for Reeva and her family. It's not justice if it isn't arrived at fairly and justly.

And this is just the bail hearing!

With hindsight, the prosecution might have been better letting him just get bail.

Then they would have proper forensics to deal with, angle of bullet, time scale, phone records etc; instead of which at this stage it is looking like "gut instinct of senior police officer".

Of course, if his version is true, it will make no difference, he will get off in the end.

But if he is guilty, it's looking more and more likely he might get off, simply because of mistakes, assumptions and trial by media, which would be doubly tragic for Reeva and her family.

On the issue of what medicine has been found: in SA you can buy things from the chemist that in the UK would require a prescription and also many in SA go to the chemist for advice and then almost self medicate as they have to pay each time they visit a Doctor unlike the UK, so quite possible that is something that would not be able to be bought over the counter in the UK but perfectly legal in SA.....just a thought.

With hindsight, the prosecution might have been better letting him just get bail

I think you are right Maryz.

But why would the police be out to get him?

I don't think they would necessarily be out to get him, but they would be very aware that it will be a massive media case and they wouldn't want any implication to be made that they were going easy because he was famous.

At least, that's a possibility.

I can't get over the phone call issue. Either he called security/hospital or he didn't. Can't they at least check that.

I thought the insinuation was that he had called Netcare (I don't know what that is) and security. But not from the phones recovered.

Yes, but the policeman has just said he didn't call anyone

"Nel: Did this accused phone police? Botha: No. Nel: Phone security? Botha: No. Nel: Phone ambulance? Botha: No."

Did he or not?

It would be a shame if he was acquitted due to shoddy police work. A sound acquittal is an important as a sound conviction, IYSWIM.

I think there is a phone that the police didn't immediately recover, and that's the one used to make the calls. It is mystifying - how hard can it be to seize all of OPs phones and look at the logs? Surely a simple thing!

But, at the end of the day he did shot and kill her, the trial will decide if he did purposefully or accidentially, but up until that time surely he shouldnt be bailed.

He must have called someone. Wasn't there a security guard who said earlier that he heard OP crying after he dropped the phone instead of hanging it up?

This is all very inconsistent.

I think the laughter from the public gallery after the police officer said OP was a flight risk even though he has a disability and is internationally recognisable is telling.

He'll get bail, I think.

I am amazed that the police haven't spoken to the person that OP called first ie. whoever was on the end of the phone for Netcare (likewise I've no idea who/what they are). Surely, the first point of contact OP had in this case would be an absolute priority? They will have spoken to OP when they interviewed him. OP would surely have mentioned this? It seems to me that because there was no record of the initial calls on the phones they recovered, they went with the assumption the calls were never made, rather than try and find out if any calls were received as claimed. It's odd that the phone used wasn't offered up until yesterday though.

Looks like the question of bail is going to a third day - they are looking to extend his stay at the police station as opposed to prison.

^ I agree Ellie , I think the section 6 charge is also looking shaky - doesn't the magistrate choose whether this is the charge for trial as well?

Yes he shot & killed her when under no threat to himself at all - just, perhaps a parnoid delusion of a threat. If he is that violent, when under no threat to himself or his loved one at all, doesn't this make him a potential threat to anyone around him?

What happens next time he wakes in the night, or from a nap and "hears a noise" as innocent and normal as someone using the toilet?

They wouldn't need to find the physical phones though - surely they can get activity logs etc from the phone companies?

I agree BeCool which is why I can't understand why the police aren't yet certain of what calls took place, when etc. There are clearly witnesses who haven't been interviewed if they are convinced he called no one other than friends/family.

Ok so Netcare is SA's private emergency service?

It says that he called the complex manager and then Netcare one minute later?

I also wouldn't have thought physical phones were needed to confirm/disprove this.

I guess a lot will be hanging on the ballistics/forensics report of whether prosthetics were on or off when the gun was fired. So far t seems the defence are doing a good job of blowing apart the prosecutions case for pre meditation.

BeCool if what he is saying is true though he did fear that he was under threat. It doesn't seem to be uncommon in SA and I would imagine with prosthetics off and everyone in that country knowing his disability he would feel pretty vulnerable.

A gun would probably be his only defence in an armed robbery. Having read that intruders have dunked children in scalding water I have to admit I can see why he would have a weapon (and I am anti gun).

There is no doubt life in SA is very different from here.

Does he have a house in Italy or was that unproven too?

What's with the memory stick? That bit I don't get. Why were they (OP's brother and lawyer) so keen to secure the memory stick? And the phone. Why wasn't that handed over at the time? Is it something or nothing?

Possibly bail. If he is telling the truth (as he so asserts) he must take the judgment that is given when he goes to trial. He shot and killed another person.

What is the sentence if the judge believes his version of events at trial? As there is no doubt he killed RS surely there is a prison sentence even if it was an accident?

He spends time training in Italy but not clear if he owns property (see his Twitter photos)

According to the Guardian, there is no property in Italy.

It's important to keep reminding outselves that this is just a bail hearing. Investigations will still be ongoing and forensic evidence is yet to come.

The issue of phonecalls - surely he picked up the house phone pressed the number to get through to the security on the gates of his complex and they were the ones who called the ambulance and then the police. He would have needed to make them aware of the situation so that they could let the ambulance through the security gates.

His lawyer said there is no property in Italy.

Wiley "if what he is saying is true though he did fear that he was under threat."

That is my point exactly. Even in SA it's surely a stretch to claim to be under, or even to actually generate in yourself such actual fear for your personal safety from your girlfriend, who you know is with you, using the toilet in the ensuite bathroom.

If he was so frightened by the noise of his girlfriend taking a pee, to the extent that he armed himself and shot her repeatedly, killing her in this state of fear, he is surely then a very real danger to anyone around him, especially at night?

The Guardian feed is really interesting, I read it all in one go after it had finished and the "facts" change totally during the hearing.

The SA police and media aren't coming out of this well at all. We should be proud of the UK system I think even though it sometimes has its flaws.

The empty bladder is a telling point, if there was evidence of urine on Reeva's clothes, the floor or elsewhere the police would have brought this up today straight away to counter that immediatley.

I've learned a lot from reading the posts from MNErs who live or have lived in SA and I think we need to wary of assumptions based on our own experience if we haven't lived there.

I have no idea if OP intended to kill Reeva but the total lack of any reason to do so by anyone so far (unless I've missed it) makes me acknowledge the possibility that it could have been a dreadful accident.

Anyone with mobility problems would feel very vunerable in the circumstances he describes.

Well he certainly doesn't sound as he he is safe to keep firearms, does he?

The one conclusion I have come to is that pretty much everything in the papers has been bollocks.

No previous DV. He did call security/hospital. No bloody cricket bat. No steroids. No house in Italy.

Even if his fear was real and he is telling the truth, the fear was actually generated by someone getting up and going for a wee. Nothing more than that. It's terrifying.

That's why I would like to know what the police attitude would be if there had been an intruder in the bathroom.

Just suppose someone moved a ladder, got in the bathroom window, heard him getting up and went into the toilet to wait until he got back into bed. Just suppose they were there, and he heard them, shot through the door and killed them, and they were found with an unused but loaded gun.

What then? Would it be murder, justifiable homicide? Would he be a hero for saving his girlfriend from possible rape/death? I suspect he would be.

I do think the charges will be reduced. The prosecution argued that OP could flee SA if faced with a 15 year sentence. IIRC from the other thread, 15 years is the minimum tariff for a schedule 5 offence (murder, attempted murder), not the 25 year minimum for the schedule 6 with which OP has been charged.

SA police have not shown themselves in the best light so far.

I have no idea if OP intended to kill Reeva but the total lack of any reason to do so by anyone so far (unless I've missed it)

It's been hinted that another man sent messages to Reeva which were read by OP and sparked off a jealous rage.

The locked toilet door and carrying Reeva downstairs sounded odd to me, but could be explained by OP defense. What puzzles me is the clothing. In a newish relationship and wearing clothing to bed? Wonder what OP was/wasn't wearing.

Wow - from the Guardian news feed his defence has shredded the prosecution. I feel he may get found not guilty looking at that

I just hope, if he does, that he wasn't

That's another newspaper allegation, though, onlymee.

Surely if there was any truth in it the prosecution would have mentioned it today.

I really think speculating about what people wear in bed is getting ridiculous. Do you think all young couples are shagging like rabbits all night long? She was an almost 30 yr old woman. I wear clothes in bed - what of it? Maybe they didn't have sex that night? Why would that be strange? Maybe they did and she put her shorts and vest afterwards.

Pretty irrelevant.

But surely onlymeee the police would have bought that up already ... Instead the investigating officer said they cannot find any issues in the relationship.

They have looked like bungling incompetents today, presenting 'facts' which have been substantiated.
He has a house in Italy - no he doesn't
There were steroids in the house - they're not steroids
Arguing was heard from 600m away - really? Oh no it was more like 300
They haven't checked all the phones he has access to

Tbf they have has less than a week to collect evidence so you wouldn't expect them to have a pin sharp case at this point.

he did kill Reeva - fact.

If he's facing a minimum of 15 years SA jail time, then I guess I'd be fucking off to Venezuela or somewhere given half a chance to do so.

His life is changed for the worse forever, whatever happens.

Is that 15 years even if it's manslaughter?

Wow. I'm not surprised they think he's a flight risk I agree I'd be gone too.

But what is the sentence if it was an accident - is it really 15 years, or is it "up to 15 years".

If he killed her, by accident, with a legal gun, what is the sentence in SA?

We don't know.

He's relatively young, if the sentence is "up to 15 years" and he gets 7, with a few years off for good behaviour (I have no idea how the SA system works), he is much less of a flight risk.

Regardless of whether OP is guilty or not, the news reporting is an utter disgrace. I totally agree Maryz I was following the Guardian news feed on my phone with the tv on in the background easily bored this morning and the BBC news headlines came on during it stating all the things that had just been refuted by the prosecution (Steroids, witness etc) - so much for remaining impartial!

What you have to look at is not what the defence lawyer brings up, but what he doesn't bring up.

This is just a preliminary, the case is not complete, there will be plenty more to come.

Re: flight risk, isn't there an option of house arrest?

If he killed her, by accident, with a legal gun, what is the sentence in SA?

Wondering about this also.

I'm thinking the same as BeCool. Even if his version was true, his actions were way beyond reasonable, even for SA standards. NOT an easy mistake to make and something anybody could have done. Regardless of how scared of an intruder he claims he was, his actions were no doubt actions of a very dangerous, possibly mentally unstable person. Definitely should be considered a danger to the public on those grounds.
The fact that he is famous doesn't make him any less of a flight risk. There are many ways to leave the country, not all of them involve going to an airport, passport in hand.

This article in the New Yorker sums up my feelings about this

I agree that owning guns, while having that degree of fear and paranoia is a dangerous combination. Not sure how that is dealt with, other than withdrawing a licence for firearms. Only other way round that would be to hire personal security, rather than be responsible for a deadly weapon. But, being an anti-gun person (obviously not living in the same climate as those in SA) myself, I do still blame OP for killing Reeva no matter what the circumstances.

'Well he certainly doesn't sound as he is safe to keep firearms, does he?'

That's for sure.

And why shoot through a locked bathroom door?

Oh my. I have been following all this since last week & it is all so surreal having it unfold before our eyes.

Having been lucky enough to attend the Paralympics & to see the way that stadium lit up to OP's appearance there last summer I admit I just didn't want it to be true that this was premeditated murder. But it didn't look good.

After yesterday's hearing I began to think that his story was starting to sound plausible. Full of oddities & strange turns, but life is like that sometimes & events CAN beggar belief. And hindsight is a great thing. As is sitting here reviewing things in the cold light of day without the presence of adrenaline...

And then - this morning. The way it started I completely swung the other way, it just all looked so damning. The bullets, the steroids, the witness etc etc.

But then that cross-examination by OP's defence. That police officer & virtually everything he said just fell apart at the seams - talk about being stuffed. How could it all come apart so quickly? How inept do they now look?

If only the truth - whatever the outcome/verdict - wasn't so bloody awful. Whatever happened that night is so utterly shocking & tragic. Just goes to show what a fragile axis anyone's life spins on.

But how could this be labelled an accident? You shoot four times through a door, and you know someone is behind it. You are obviously trying to kill the person. No matter who he may have thought he was shooting, there can be nothing accidental about those actions. And it can't be self defence either, because there was no immediate threat to him from someone inside a closed room. I'm not sure where the staircase was, but presumably in this situation you leg it outside, you don't shoot the person through a door?

I don't know how reliable a source the Telegraph is here but it says that in SA:
"If somebody breaks into your house, you are entitled to kill that person under certain circumstances. If the burglar runs away and you kill that person anyway, you could be exceeding the bounds of self-defence. If, however, you are faced with a situation where you fear for your life or safety, you would be entitled to kill the intruder."

If the judge believes that OP thought there was a burglar in the toilet, could he let him off completely?

Certainly got the sense today that the magistrate is doubting he's a flight risk and, therefore, considering granting bail.

Bimbledorf I have been following on twitter, through a Barry Bateman (SA journalist in the court) and have noted some of the comments made by the BBC man in the court too.

Having just looked at the BBC online headlines it looks as if they don't speak to their own journalists or pay attention to what has been said in court. ITV news was the same.

Agreed, this is a bail hearing and all the evidence is not presented, but how utterly depressing is this trial by media. Even on here, we are getting posters trotting out "media facts".

If he is found guilty, then he is a cold blooded murderer and deserves to be locked up for life.

And as someone upthread said, if he is found not guilty, then they had bloody better be sure that he is, and not get off on a technicality.

But, as the past two days have shown, I would rather wait until those in possession of the facts and the evidence make that ruling, not the media.

Well it's a good thing that they are waiting then

Daily fail is the same with its headlines, I guess they grab the attention more. Until you read the articles and see the balanced reporting further down.

Makes you think when you have been following the BBC twitter and Guardian live feeds....

haven't read all this but:

Talking to a friend last night the law as it currently stands means that even if you shoot an actual burglar on your property there is still an arrest and a trial but if you can prove you were at actual risk a conviction is then unlikely.

Shooting someone accidentally with a gun is slightly less straightforward because although you can own a gun for protection purposes and can use it for that purpose, guns are still fairly heavily licenced and there are still regulations as to how and where they can be used. Bearing in mind that even if you shoot a criminal on your property you have to face trial, if it transpires you were firing shots into a room where you knew someone to be present but had no idea who and what risk they actually posed to you, you are on somewhat more shaky ground. After all, while many criminals in SA do come armed, it's always possible that one might not be, or might be armed with a knife whereas you have a gun, etc, but where risk is unknown the right to kill becomes less apparent iyswim.

I think it's fair to assume that most of what's written i the press is bullshit, but I also think it's telling that most South Africans I've spoken to don't concur with this fear on the level you just shoot blindly into a door without knowing the risk that's on the other side, and think that OP is guilty as hell.

Maryz "Surely if there was any truth in it the prosecution would have mentioned it today."

I don't know. It may still be under investigation.

But even if there was no message, it doesn't rule out a conversation mentioning such a person, which might have provoked jealousy. It's not something the accused is going to bring up. It's in his interests to convince everyone that everything was sweetness and light.

Well I hope he doesn't get bail.

And think he could be a suicide risk.

"If somebody breaks into your house, you are entitled to kill that person under certain circumstances. If the burglar runs away and you kill that person anyway, you could be exceeding the bounds of self-defence. If, however, you are faced with a situation where you fear for your life or safety, you would be entitled to kill the intruder."

- no one broke into his house
- no one ran away
- no intruder made him fear for his life or safety
- Reeva was not an intruder

He was under (perhaps) a mistaken belief that A) there was an intruder; and B) that intruder could harm him.

I think in the UK** there would be some kind of test to see what a 'reasonable person' would believe in the same circumstances. And I think from the MN massive, the "reasonable MN'er" would have checked the whereabouts of the partner before going to the bathroom with a gun.

Also as he never saw an intruder, and presumably the 'noises' he heard were simply those of Reeva going to the toilet (ie fairly innocuous normal sounds), is it reasonable to experience the level of fear for his life of safety that he did under these circumstances?

* could be wrong - law school was years ago*

I think there is a possibility he might be faced with using some kind of mental illness defence, if he is going to insist he was so paranoid and frightened from the above.

currentbuns - good article.

I'm struggling to see how 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can be met, even with more forensic testing, after the admitted incompetence of the investigation thus far. Having a good defense advocate is one thing, being able to annihilate the investigative lead is something else!

I'd be inclined to say that strict bail would be the more suitable option right now, I'm having serious trouble reconciling the potential dangers OP would face on remand (in one of SA most violent prisons if sent to Pretoria central) with a 'rock solid' case that has been shredded like tissue paper.

have just read the court transcript and that investigating officer transformed into a bumbling idiot.

BC no there wasn't an intruder however I guess that you could argue it like this: if you heard someone you believed to be an intruder running away from your property, would you be entitled to shoot them any less than if you actually heard someone in your house, iyswim.

I think the gun element is far more difficult to comprehend because we don't live in a country where it would ever be deemed acceptable to shoot dead an intruder because owning a gun is essentially illegal, and even if you own a licenced fire arm, the secure conditions under which that fire arm are meant to be kept are such that you would never be able to get too it in time to use it even in self defense. So in this country if you defend yourself it's against someone who is there in your face, rather than someone who could be some distance away but still posing a risk....

wannaBe no former intruder was running away. I don't get your point.
His GF was taking a pee - surely that is a very normal 'noise'.

In an analogy - my brother once hit an intruder over the head with a baseball bat.

He heard a noise, crept downstairs, and hit the - but he hit him from around a corner, and didn't actually see him until after he hit him.

When he did look at him, he nearly had a heart attack as the guy was the same height and colouring, and was wearing similar clothes to my other brother, who was out that night.

In the event, the man was an intruder and wasn't (luckily) really badly hurt.

But if he had died, you could argue that my brother should have thought before hitting someone as hard as you could with a baseball bat, especially if the "intruder" had turned out to be his brother.

In a country with readily available guns, replace the word "bat" with "gun" above, and you would have a similar scenario.

So I don't know - I suspect shooting is considered to be reasonable force in SA.

Animation, I agree he's a suicide risk. But I can't see how it would be fair to send him to prison on such shaky evidence at this stage.

no, but if aquittall is normal in the case of shooting dead an intruder then thinking it was an intruder would be a normal defense given he would know that he'd be likely to be aquitted had there genuinely been an intruder, iyswim?

I don´t think that it´s murder as in he wanted to kill her.

But it is surely something bloody reckless to shoot through a door knowing that someone is there?

Why wasn´t he calling the police & getting himself & her to safety?

I just don´t get confronting an intruder.

Is SA like this?

On my first night in Johannesburg, I accidentally shut the rape door behind me, trapping myself in the bedroom. Most middle-class homes in South Africa feature ?rape doors? ? sliding jail doors that compartmentalize a house so that no intruder can get at you if ? and this is the phrase commonly used ? ?your perimeter is breached.?

I think perhaps the fact that ignorance is not a defense would prevent him from being acquitted, even if they believed his story as the fact remains that this was no burglar.

Maryz yes that analagy is about right.

It's slightly different in SA in that you are allowed to own a gun for self defense, whereas here the self defense angle is a bit of a grey area. e.g. if someone broke into my house and I was confronted by him in my kitchen, grabbed a carving knife and stabbed him to death I could probably claim self defense. However if I habitually kept a carving knife under my bed it shows more intent, iyswim.

Why wasn´t he calling the police & getting himself & her to safety?

Assuming for a moment that OP is telling the truth about not wearing his prosthetic legs at the time, it is likely that his mobility would have been significantly hampered (balance/speed/etc compromised by walking on his stumps). At that point it could be argued that he thought the only way to ensure his and Reeva's safety was by confrontation and (again, assuming fro a minute that he's telling the truth) shouting for Reeva to call the police (thus alerting her to the 'danger').

Oops I meant to put 'ignorance is not a defense' in italics not bold. I am far from sure about that sentence but I would hope that the fact that she was not a burglar would mean that he could not claim self defense.

Yes Wannabe, that's what the police told my parents.

My brother would have got away with a baseball bat, because he was a teenager and had proof that he had only been given it a week before (by my dad who had been in the States).

Had it been a knife, or even a golf club kept under his bed specifically for hitting burglars, under Irish law it would have been assault.

diddl in SA you confront an intruder before they confront you first.

Most intruders come armed - it's not like the UK where, as a rule, a burglar comes to steal your telly and then leaves - they come to steal whatever they can lay their hands on, then rape the women and murder the occupants on their way out for good measure. That's how it was when I lived there twenty years ago, and unfortunately this isn't a uniquely SA thing - it's a uniquely Africa thing. So if you're broken into it is often a case of kill or die.

Is there a Grounds of Diminished Responsibility or equivalent in SA?

CFSKate - my SA family (without exception) lock themselves into a secure part of the house and put on burglar alarms on the other areas.

You do not get house insurance unless you have membership to an armed response/private security firm.

Being armed is also a dodgy ground - unless you are able to use the gun and are able to operate it under stress it can so easily be used against you.

But would it be reasonable for him to think that there was an intruder?

Is it reasonable to mistake your partner going to the toilet for an intruder?

If this kind of defence worked, how would anyone ever be committed of killing their partner, for example. "Oh I was scared, I thought he/she was an intruder and going to hurt me. No I didn't see them at all, and they were behind a door, but I was so frightened I felt I had to shoot them."

Women experience enough DV in SA (and elsewhere) as it is without defences like this being allowed to succeed.

Article on femicide/Reeva/Oscar in SA

To quote "A 2009 Medical Research Council study revealed 2363 reported femicides in that year alone. Of those killings, 57.4% were attributed to those women’s intimate partners and 17.1% were gun related. That’s, loosely, one women killed by her intimate partner every eight hours. Every eight hours!"

lady I think there is culpable homicide. There was a case of a father is SA shooting what he thought was a car thief but it was actually was his daughter who had got early & was 'borrowing' the car. I am sure that case would up as an aquittal.

when I was younger (in SA as it happens) we were taught that some of the best things to keep as self defense (if you don't have a gun) are a can of hair spray or other aerosol as spraying that in someone's face will blind them for long enough to let you get away, and a bunch of keys because if you're grabbed you can use those quickly

The defence are clearly running rings around the prosecution.
I just can't imagine how he could possibly have retrieved his gun from under the bed without noticing that Reeva was not there. That he didn't even cast a cursory glance at the bed, but went straight to a locked door and started shooting at it. It doesn't make sense - on any level. If you hear an unexpected noise, the very first thing you would do would be to establish that the other person you know for certain to be in the room wasn't responsible for making the unexpected noise. Surely?

I get the "kill or be killed" idea.

But also-if he asked Reeva to call the police & there was no reply-where did he think she was?

The bathroom window was open-but why would the intruder go into the toilet?

Was there no scream after the first shot?

A lot of it just makes no sense.

THERE WAS NO INTRUDER!!!! THERE WAS NO BREAK-IN!!!

There was (perhaps) a mistaken belief that there was an intruder, based on hearing noises from the bathroom - noises made by his GF going to the toilet! he was very very very wrong. You couldn't get more wrong.

You see, any of those arguments could be refuted:

If he called to her - did he say "Reeva, don't make a noise, call the police"

She might have thought it was an intruder shooting, and not wanted to give away where she was.

If he came in from the balcony (no legs) and immediately ducked down to get gun from under bed, he could have crept around the bottom of the bed without standing up again, and therefore never looked at the bed ( and it was dark).

You could come up with an argument against any of the what-ifs.

Yes, there is no doubt that was he did was spectacularly stupid. But if there had been an intruder, if Reeva had been silent and still under the covers, if the "intruder" had a gun, was what he did the action of a saviour, or would he still be a "deliberate murderer"?

I don't know.

It is so far away from our daily lives, it is hard to imagine.

thefirstmrsrochester That was Rudi Visagie. He mistook his daughter for a car jacker, shot her and the charges against him were dropped as it was considered that he had suffered enough through the loss of his daughter.

Think you should consider a new career as a defence barrister, Mary. You're awfully good at this

Sorry, Ellie, I don't know which side to believe . I think anyone could probably give an convincing argument either way.

It's such a mess.

And of course, Reeva died. Which is dreadful, either way .

I keep thinking his defence is so weak that it could be true.
Or he would have come out with a better story.

"If he came in from the balcony (no legs) and immediately ducked down to get gun from under bed, he could have crept around the bottom of the bed without standing up again, and therefore never looked at the bed ( and it was dark).

You could come up with an argument against any of the what-ifs."

Sorry, but this argument really does not explain it at all. It does not explain why he went straight to get a gun without even glancing across to see whether Reeva was in the bed.

It was dark, he says. She was in bed when he got up, so it never occurred to him she wasn't. I don't know.

LBE - I kind of agree with that. It's so bizarre, it might just be true

Lady if it is a 'story' he would have formed it in a very short space of time, under huge stress and pressure. So it wouldn't necessarily be any better.

He is certainly presenting himself as a very stupid man.

Oh no - don't say sorry. I just meant you're really good at seeing all angles. Was a genuinely meant comment. Did it sound sarcastic? Soz.

I don't know what to think either. I think at this stage, unless there's something monumental to come out tomorrow, then he ought to get bail. The defence have made a good reasonable doubt case. IMO.

also, there were no signs of physical asalt on Reeva other than the bullet wounds. Nothing. That doesn't fit with a profile of DV.

Whatever happens, he should certainly never be licensed to own another gun. Trigger happy doesn't even come close.

I just feel a little guilty arguing both sides Ellie - I didn't think you were sarcastic

Maryz - why feel guilty? When looking at evidence or arguments, it is important to look at all possible interpretations and see which one is supported most strongly...then look at whether that support meets the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (or equivalent).

I think his defence would be much more slick if it was contrived. The fact that things don't hang exactly together is, I think, an indication of plausibility.

It wouldn't make sense for his story to be completely sewn up, given that the events allegedly take place in a time of confusion.

I agree lougle. I could buy OP version of events for the reasons given up thread. The prosecution instead of being 'cast iron' was, in fact, mostly based on the officers extended experience. Doesn't mean he always gets it right.

Weighing up the evidence is the right thing to do, Mary. That's all we can do because we weren't there.

My gut feeling (NOT based on evidence, so could well be wrong) is that he's guilty. I can't even explain why, it just doesn't sit right somehow.

But if I was on a jury, I would have to dismiss that and look at the evidence from every conceivable angle, which is what you're doing. So don't feel guilty.

Martz you speak so much sense. It's good to think objectively about both arguments, not just either defence or prosecution sides or arguments

We shall just have to wait to see what light the forensics shed on the case.

I did of course mean Mary <fat fingers>

If he is guilty, I wonder what the scenario was that led up to it.
He must have been in a fit of uncontrollable rage, he acted beyond reason.
I get that this is the action of an abuser, but I still wonder what would have caused it .
Poor,poor girl.

Bloody good job many people on this thread are not responsible for judging the case. Am seriously at how quick people are to condemn, based on judgements such as 'it's weird to lock the bathroom door when you go to the toilet' (er no, I always do).

It's a tragic event, whatever the circumstances, and will be judged in a court, hopefully fairly. Fwiw, the prosecution pretty well collapsed today, and admitted there were no inconsistencies in his story, based on the evidence.

The neighbours who heard screaming were 600m, and couldn't hear OP or Reeva's voices. If they DID hear screaming, perhaps could have been OP screaming for help afterwards.

The bat was used to break down the door. The skull injury to Reeva was from a bullet.

Let's wait and see what the trial throws up. I hate the way a high profile incident like this brings out the arm chair judges on here.

I am also that if he is remanded in custody, it will be in a notoriously violent prison, and he will have his prosthetics taken away so he can't use them as a weapon (ffs), and be confined to a wheelchair. That cannot be right.

lily I didn't know his prosthetics would be taken away ! Guilty or not guilty, that's dreadful.

I hate the way a high profile incident like this brings out the arm chair judges on here What, like you've just done?

I can't see anyone condemning him. There's a real effort to look at both sides, in case you hadn't noticed.

And sorry - it will be in a notoriously violent prison, and he will have his prosthetics taken away so he can't use them as a weapon (ffs), and be confined to a wheelchair. That cannot be right. this is a perfectly ridiculous thing to say. IF he's a cold blooded murderer then he'd deserves to be in prison, like all the other cold blooded murderers.

Lily, you've just proved yourself also to be an armchair judge.
Some people on here believe the defence, others the prosecution, and others just don't know.
It's a major news story, making headlines across the world and the first item on every news broadcast.
Of course it's going to be talked about on MN, and I think the majority of people are giving some really interesting opinions.
<sigh ,it's nice and calm here without Montpellier, isn't it, long may it continue>

And some of us are see-sawing madly from "surely he couldn't" to "maybe he did" to "God, that's terrible, he must have" back to "bloody hell, maybe he didn't do it on purpose, maybe he's just stupid".

And watching the feed today, I suspect many people in the courtroom, and even the legal teams from both sides might also be see-sawing.

Oh yes re see-saw!

I really hope the police don't completely mess up the forensics - they will be essential in proving, to whatever degree possible, what actually went on that night.

"The neighbours who heard screaming were 600m, and couldn't hear OP or Reeva's voices. If they DID hear screaming, perhaps could have been OP screaming for help afterwards."

The supposed witness was 300m away, not 600. You are accusing others of being judgemental, yet offer an apologist perspective which seems designed to present OP as some sort of victim. He is not the victim here.

I think OP's defence team have committed a bit of a boo boo in insisting that

1) the witness was too far away and could not possibly have heard screaming

and

2) the window was open, making OP suspicious that an intruder was inside.

....an open window makes screams a lot more audible to those outside I'd have thought.

I'll be interested to see the toxicology results on OP - whatever was in the bottles of 'herbal remedy', why would he have needles in his possession?

Also interested to see his blood alcohol results - something caused the red mist to descend, no matter who he thought was in the toilet.

Hmm, I thought their point was that the witness was so far away that they couldn't determine who the voice(s) belonged to, not that they couldn't have heard any voices? Also, the witness seems to have got the number of shots wrong, so the defence were alluding to the possibility of the 'non stop shouting having occurred after Reeva had been shot. Ill have to go back and read the guardian feed though, cos I'm not sure if that's what they said, or if that's my interpretation of what was said.

I agree the various test results are going to be the crux for both sides.

I would imagine the fact the door was locked will be a non issue for the defence, as will Reeva being in a hiding position. They will say that she went to the toilet, heard Oscar shout about an intruder, lock the door and get into hiding position. Hence why she didn't call out as she wouldn't know whether it was OP or an intruder.

As for the witness who heard shouting, but couldn't confirm who it was, they will e made mince meat of in the witness box as they also said they heard 3 shots, 17 minutes passed then 3 more shots. The police have confirmed this is incorrect so I would imagine they will be deemed unreliable.

The balcony doors, well they will say the couple just nodded off. He was already in bed at 10pm whilst she was doing yoga. He will say when he awoke they were open.

^ this is not necessarily what I think just what I think the defence will put forward.

Thank you HelenMN for removing that word

I wish I could see-saw but I`m struggling with the four shots to me he intended to kill, after each shot is a pause.

bunch that is indeed how the defence countered the prosecutions claims. They also got the distance wrong by 300 meters.

why would he have needles in his possession?

One of the reports indicated that the remedy in question can be taken by injection - if the report is accurate it would explain the presence of the needles.

currentbuns
The prosecutor did originally say 600m and then amended it to 300m - still a hell of a way to hear what was going on where.

All so sad.

see it doesn't fit with a profile of domestic violence that there were no other injuries. If she were running away to hide for instance it's likely he would already have been violent, and even if only vaguely so there would be signs - there weren't.

So if he shot her through the door intending to kill her, why?

So, if we say it´s reasonable to think it was an intruder, & reasonable on thinking that to get a gun-is it then reasonable to shoot that gun without actually knowing where other occupants are?

Is it OK just to "think" that they are in bed?

It doesn't sound like a lot of 'thinking' was going on diddl, whatever way it went down.
It was more shoot first, think later, either way, OP acted totally recklessly.

I think the premeditated murder won't stick but given the poor/dangerous decisions he made that ultimately cost Reeva her life, he should serve some kind of sentence. He's made a series of decisions that had deadly consequences for an innocent woman. Again, assuming his version is the correct one.

With prosthetics OP is just a shade over 6foot.

Without he would only be around 4ft wouldn't he?

has anything been made about the height of the bullet holes in the door?

600m at night is very different to 600m during the day - if it was arguing it would also be at volume ...

Only that the police officer has stated his view of the angle of the trajectory is based on his experience and not on the outcome of their investigation. That part of the investigation hasn't been concluded yet, or if it has, it's not been relief upon yet by the prosecution.

It's about context. In that environment a 'shoot or be shot' mentality isn't uncommon. People's levels of fear/paranoia can result in 'shoot first, ask questions later'.
Not an excuse but an explanation.
Regardless of the outcome of a trial it's tragic for all.

Relied.

"Lily, you've just proved yourself also to be an armchair judge."

Not at all. Just offering an alternative to the 'hanging mob' on here. I'm not making a judgement either way, just countering some of the wild claims on here, because the tabloids would LOVE him to be convicted.

I haven't heard the evidence, and as such have no idea if he is telling the truth or not. As far as going to a violent prison and having his prosthetic legs taken away and forced to use a wheelchair, I think that is inhumane for anyone.

Nancy The prosecution have already said that the trajectory of the bullets was "down" from the upper part of the door. If this true then it proves he was wearing his legs. I don't think the defence said anything much about this except question the detective about his expertise in ballistics (which is not much). So, it remains to be seen.

One of the bullets was found in the hall. This is odd.

If you were thinking rationally if course you would try & ascertain where the other person was. However if you heard a noise, recalled the bathroom window was open and there were ladders nearby, and that, despite being possibly paranoid about attack/robbery, I think rationality might not come into it. Reacting instinctively to a perceived threat is what I can see this far. Horrendous consequences.
Hand on heart I have woken suddenly in the night convinced there was a burglar in the house and its turned out to be DH having gone to the toilet.
It isn't that an absurd judgement to arrive it, is it?

Ellie that hasn't been confirmed yet from the investigation - it's based on the investigating police officer's experience so could yet turn out to be wrong. It will be key though as the height/trajectory will either support OP's version or completely destroy it.

I'm with you thefirstmrsrochester

No, I know bunch - but it was raised by the prosecution, which was what Nancy was asking. There's clearly room for doubt given that it was just the unqualified police officer's view & not that of an expert.

But if he recalled the open window & the ladders-he was thinking pretty rationally?

Why wouldn´t he check that windows were locked before retiring, though?

And don't forget - the police missed finding one of the bullets (lodged in the toilet) - this was only found by the defence's forensic team!

FFS.

Nancy - I have read an article saying he is 5'2 without his legs and just over 6ft with them. (can't find it now, I think it was something to do with Nike). Quite a height difference.

I don't know how ballisitcs and forensics work, if they can tell if he was wearing his legs or not? Certainly they can in CSI but in real life? A policeman friend is very scathing of that sort of thing.

I think the window was broken and people were out to fix it then couldn't hence the perceived security issue and also the ladders being near. The open patio doors? I dont think i am alone in have been lax about locking up, especially after a few drinks.
That drinks has been had is pure speculation on my part of course. And that of the Telegraph which has been ridiculously sensational throughout.