To think Oscar Pistorius deserves the benefit of the doubt?

[SilverMoo]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I think the media circus around this is really unfair and am shocked so many people are ready to jump on the bandwagon and call him a murdering woman hater before he's even been tried. Just that really.

you're in a property that isn't fully secure

Er, you are in a secure property with private armed guards controlling the entrance and exit to the estate/housing block / compound.

He is entitles to a fair trial, she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

I think there will be a smear campaign against her in the next few weeks.

Having read his explanation of the events, I believe him. His story makes sense, specially because of the fact he lives in SA a country known for being so dangerous.
There have been a number of times when in the dark I have thought DH is in the bed next to me only to realise later on that he is in the bathroom.
This terrible incident reinforces that we mustn't have guns in our homes!

From what we've seen so far, which is very little as the trial has yet to begin, this is all preliminary court stuff, are news paper assumptions.

The question in my mind is: if you have a loaded gun, why would you use a cricket bat to break down the door rather than shoot the lock off?

HollyBerryBush - I suppose that if what he says is true, then once he realised that Reeva wasn't in bed then he wouldn't want to fire any more shots into the small toilet space

If all the rumours about the cricket bat being used to beat her etc aren't raised by the investigating officer/prosecuting team today, then the press need to rein it in - its might that this isn't seen prejudicial in SA as it would be in the UK. If the prosecution do put this evidence forward, then, well....

'mad' not 'might' - that the press speculation isn't seen as prejudicial

I totally agree OP.

He has not be proven guilty or innocent yet, but the media coverage has pretty much decided already.

He is definitely guilty of killing her- he has said so, but the point to be proven is whether it was an accident or a row gone wrong.

The police are being shockingly unprofessional by talking to the press so much.

Another point that really really irritates me is that Oscar says he thought it was an intruder. The police are saying there are no signs of a break in as if this proves he is lying. But the point is that he THOUGHT there was an intruder, not that there WAS an intruder. It's been driving me mad.

Sorry, he is obviously not innocent of killing her, but it sounds to me like an accident gone horrible wrong.

the whole thing is just bizarre I dont know what to make of it I dont get how he thought it was an intruder I just dont I guess that what the trial is for,

I'm with MrRected. Not that I've ever lived in or even been to South Africa, but I can appreciate that it's a very different culture to the UK, where I am, and that it may well breed a certain mindset and behaviours. Add that to the fact that Oscar Pistorius is extremely high-profile and (presumably) wealthy, or at least perceived to be, and that he has received death threats in the past, and I can understand that mindset even better.

I also believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Well, call me a jaundiced old cynic, but he will get the conviction or acquittal that money can buy - in the terms of being able to afford the best legal team in RSA to defend his corner and develop mittigating circumstances.

The spin doctors are working already to blacken Reevas name with other men. I'll be interested to see whether his defence team use the "vulnerable, disabled" angle

Accident or no accident he's lost everything - all his sponsorship, the steroids found will more than likely result in all his medals being stripped.

The press do love a fallen hero, nothing better than kicking someone when their down.

In all this we tend to forget a girl tragically died - and he's admitted he did it. It's just the why and how that needs to wrung out in court.

Because I don't believe, if the media summary is correct (it may not be) that he shot her in the hip THEN she 'ran' (she wouldnt be able to run) to the bathroom without making a sound, and lock her self in. A cry, a gasp would identify her as female - she would have called out. And if he genuinely thought she was an intruder, he's shot her once in the hip, as soon as she turned and ran/limped to the bathroom, he would have emptied the barrel into her retreating back.

Shoot first, ask later.

She would have called out from the bathroom, he would have been yelling and asking if she was ok, even if he thought she was still in the bedroom.

chuckle< just as well I'm not on the jury!

Fir

All the stuff coming out in the press is just speculation and its grim. Two lives ended on valentines night in tragic circumstances, that much we know as fact. Reeva died in horrendous circumstances killed by the man she thought she loved and trusted. Oscar has lost everything he has known, his girlfriend, his home, his freedom, his reputation. I'm going along with the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, do not do so would be unfair on a possibly innocent man.

Firstly, let me apologise for my 'joke' posted last night. I was rather drunk, (as the state of the multipla's left wing will attest) and not thinking so straight.

A friend lives in south Africa. She never walks the streets, ever. Even at 10am. She carries a gun at all times. She is no racist, being married to a black man and having a second home in Marseilles where there is a high African population. Our society is very different to the place where she and Oscar pistorius grew up, and sadly it has taught both to shoot first and ask questions later. I'm not defending Oscar as such, but we should let his judicial system make a decision and not vilify him based on our tamed standards.

Just reading the tweets from court (on the Guardian website) - the police sound shockingly unprofessional. Not only the "leaks" to the press but some of the stuff they've been challenged on - they didn't check what the so called "steroids" are (it's apparently a legal herbal remedy), they didn't check OPs phone to see what emergency call he made, their witness to a row was 2/3 of kilometre away. When I read all their evidence this morning (found steroids, witness heard shouting etc), I was prepared to think his story was nonsense, but the defence team seem to be rebutting it.

Holly - I don't think it's been suggested by either side in court that she was hit in the hip before she went to the bathroom. There was something in the press about this the other day but I don't think it's been put forward as evidence.

^ as above. the police didn't even check if he'd called the hospital from a phone other than the cellphones they recovered. He did. The call is recorded.

The police said they found steroids. It doesn't appear there were steroids.

The police said they argued. The witness who suggested this lives over 600m away and couldn't confirm it was OP and RS. They couldn't find any issues in the couples relationship so far to present a motive.

RS's bladder was empty - consistent with someone who had got up to go to toilet.

Junior prosecutor overheard saying "we're in trouble" whilst leaving the courtroom.

The police investigation appears to be just as flawed as OPs defence. I think it will come down to whether there is reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case when it goes to trial. They are going to have to come up with something better if they want to continue with the "premeditated" case.

The prosecution has been chewed up and spat out I'm very glad to hear.

So, can anyone answer me this... If he had to go and get the gun from under the bed, why didn't he:

Check if she was there
Ask her if she heard anything
Tell her to call the Police
Tell her to call the security in the compound
Tell her to get out of the house
Warn her there was going to be shooting and cover her ears
Tell her to get up and get dressed and give her the bat?

DH would have done at least a couple of these, Oscar supposedly didn't.

I bloody hate the media sometimes

Have his trial and let us know when its over

i am not overfond of south africa either, sorry. violent fucked up place

And that is why MrRected - I hope it is a case of mistaken identity and not DV.

MrsTerryPratchett - I believe that he says that he shouted to her (ie to where he thought she was in bed) to call the police.

That police officer sounds useless.

Question for those of you that believe it was an accident... Do you truly believe that or just want to believe that because you like him, or because you don't feel he's getting a fair hearing?

I appreciate what we are hearing is gossip and not proven but did he really think it was someone trying to get into his house.

Why would an intruder lock themselves in a bathroom?
Why did he say he was asleep when 2 witnesses heard screaming between 2 and 3am (not confirmed)
would he seriously not have woken Reeva? or her not have woken herself when he got out of bed to go to the bathroom and shoot?

good job for Oscar i'm not his Judge :)

Fair enough LegoWidow that's sounds more believable. I'm not in the UK or SA so not getting the news as much. TBH he sounds guilty as sin from here but I'm glad I get a bit more of the nuance from MN.

What legowidow says, but I can't articulate it as well.

It seems as if a lot of the evidence from the prosecution has proved to be unsustainable today - eg the "testosterone" found in the room was a herbal remedy, the person who heard the screaming lives a long way from OP's house, and reported an incorrectn number of shots, the unlicenced gun is his Dad's, he does NOT have a house in Italy, etc etc

I'm inclined to think it wasn't pre-meditated murder, just an awful, awful accident.

Good point rhino - I totally hear what you are saying. I'm trying not to be blinded to the fact that he might be guilty as sin. I'm not saying I definitely believe him (though I think that I do) but I'm yet to be persuaded by what I've heard otherwise. I find his story to be implausible BUT I also find the alternative to be implausible. I do want to believe him, you are right.

I'm trying to keep an open mind.

I'm a lawyer myself (not a criminal lawyer though) and I find it really unnerving that the press seem to have him tried and convicted already based on sensationalism that hasn't been borne out in the proceedings so far (it doesn't seem that she was beaten with the cricket bat, it doesn't seem that he had illegal steroids). The tweets from journos in the court (that I was reading via The Guardian website) have been fascinating and seem to be veering towards believing him.