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.

It''s really hard to decide for yourself whether you think his actions are consistent with a belief that there was an intruder in the house. But, posters above have alluded to some observed aggressiveness and gracelessness in defeat (posssibly getting caught up in disappointment and unable control his actions in extreme emotion?). So I suppose this could point to someone who is more likely to be reckless and aggressive in responding to a perceived threat of intruders (i.e. series of shots, not stopping to think who might be behind the door), whereas another person (like me), might be much more defensive, i.e. calling the authorities, defending my position by hiding behind a bedroom door with a suitable weapon if one was to hand. We'll probably never know what happened.

People are asking why an intruder would lock the door...

First, did Oscar actually try the door handle then? How would he have known if the door was locked or not?

Second, if I was an intruder, and thought someone might have realised I was there, and I was a South African intruder and knew that a lot of people owned guns, then I definitely would lock myself into the bathroom.

I'm going with Oscar's story at the moment. I think it was an awful, tragic mistake.

There is no jury system (presumably because a 'jury of your peers' has no meaning in such a divided and racist society) but a judge should be more impartial than a jury and know the law better.

I hope the judge will be impartial. But they are human too and at least in a jury of 12 there's some kind of inherent checks and balances system.

LastChance, that's very weak indeed and amounts to nothing more than flimsy pop psychology, wild speculation and a serious case of jumping to conclusions along with symptoms of putting two and two together and making a lot of bollocks.

I don't think you will find many world class competitors who are truly graceful in defeat. Some are better at putting on a face than others. Believing you are the best/ unbeatable goes with the territory.

It's a long jump from having a tantrum about not winning a race to shooting your girlfriend dead.

Character witnesses will be more in depth and relevant at trial stage.

He shot dead his girlfriend.

I don't understand giving him the benefit of the doubt.

He murdered a young woman.

Whether it was an 'accident' or deliberate, he deserves years in jail for that.

(I don't believe for a moment that he thought a mute intruder was hiding out in his bathroom)

LadyClarice -you are right! Not claiming in any way I'm trying to determine the truth, just trying to understand how believable I feel the different versions of events being put forward are. Because at the moment I'm finding it hard to imagine reacting so recklessly, without due regard appearing to be made to the safety of a loved one, if indeed I was under the impression that there was an intruder in the property.

Was also responding to some of the speculations up thread about Oscar having anger issues -pointing out that this doesn't have to mean it is more likely he killed Reeva.

Just thinking aloud on here -sorry thought we were all speculating to some extent as we don't know the facts!

Sorry, then, LastChance. I read your post as you agreeing with those who thought his apparent lack of grace in defeat somehow made it more likely that he had murdered Reeva.

I can't imagine reacting so recklessly either, but I am not him, and I don't live in a country with appallingly high violent crimes rates and relatively lax gun controls, or have a public profile, or the kind of wealth and advantages that might make me into a target.

When he heard a noise in the bathroom wouldn't his first thought be it might be his GF instead of an intruder?

When he went for his gun under the mattress why didn't he warn her he thought there was an intruder in the house?

When he shouted at the intruder in the bathroom, how can it be possible that Reeva did not answer?

I find his version of events very odd to say the least.

In his opening testimony, Oscar states that it eventually dawned on him that Reeva may have gone to the toilet WHILST he brought the fan in from the balcony -so he may state in the trial that he did observe her to be in bed before going to the balcony and this is why he concluded the noise was an intruder. We'll have to wait and see. He also stresses that he did not have the lights on in the bedroom and had pulled the blinds down -so he may state this is why he did not notice Reeva was not in the bed when he got the gun.

As to why Reeva did not answer when he called out -I'm not sure I would shout out and betray my position to intruders in that situation. So that may be understandable -as has been said upthread.

Agree with you Socrates that it's odd he didn't warn her prior to shouting out.

I hope you would be on the jury if I shot DH four times when he's in the loo...

What I don't get is that he claims to have gotten up in the early hours of the morning to get the fan from the balcony and close the sliding doors. If he was so terrified of intruders that he could shoot an unidentified target through a locked door in a fit of panicked hysteria why the hell would he not have his doors locked up before bed? I live in a very safe country and every house entrance door is locked at night and during the day unless it is open for air when we are in that room.

Secondly, all these people that are saying that it's understandable to shoot someone without first identifying your target because of the fear of crime. I grew up with guns in the house (very rural) and it was always drilled into us (once old enough to be trained); Never ever shoot without first identifying your target, never point your gun at a target you're not prepared to shoot. Anyone dumb enough to shoot blindly is too idiotic to have a gun as they are a greater danger to other household members/visitors than potential intruders.

Of course, the judge will decide whether he truly is that dumb or worse. It's very sad and bizarre.

His story really doesn't add up.

How can he have not noticed Reeva wasn't in bed when he heard the noise in the bathroom, whilst he was still in the bedroom?

Why, if he feared for his safety, did he sleep with the door open?

Why didn't he call out before he shot the 'intruder' who was in a room with no windows, behind a locked door? Whoever it was only had one way out and he had a gun so was in the stronger position.

If he shot her 4 times surely she would have screamed after the first shot so he would have at least known the 'intruder' wasn't a man and might have thought not to shoot anymore.

He then claims he realised what he'd done and bashed the door down with a cricket bat and she was still alive so he carried her downstairs. She must have screamed as not even the 4 shots killed her straight away, let alone the first one.

One thing that bothers me is that if he is innocent and it was an awful mistake then he has also missed her funeral, on top of losing the woman he loved and having to live with being the cause of it.

But l do think it's a bit odd that he was allegedly shouting her thinking she was in the bed and she didnt answer from behind the toilet door. Sounds more like she locked herself in out of fear or after a row. Of course she could have been deafened by flushing llo or running tap but surely that would make him realise it probably wasnt a burglar and was her. Burglars dont generally use the facilities before getting on with the burgling !

But if everything was dandy and you were in the loo and your DP shouted you from outside several times l think most women would answer even if it's a ' fgs ,l'm in the loo - l cant even have a pee in peace' - or words to that effect.
Or if he shouted 'who is it?' or 'come out of there', all things being equal you would expect a reply of 'lt's me yer daft bugger' or ilk.

But l wasnt there, so.....

Bearbehind - I agree that the weaker parts of his story are that he left the door open despite being wary of intruders and also why she didn't cry out but I think he has given answers for some of your other queries (whether one believes them or not is a different matter...)

• he believes that she was in bed when he got up. She must have got up and slipped into the bathroom whilst he was retrieving the fan, so when he heard the noise from the bathroom, it didn't cross his mind that it was her as he'd just left her in bed. And he didn't see because it was dark.

• I'm pretty sure that he says that he did call out to the intruder. I guess that his argument re shooting first will be based around the vulnerability of being on his stumps plus the general climate of fear in SA. Maybe the defence argument will be that she didn't perhaps respond initially as she thought then that there was an intruder once he called out (not realising that he meant the person in the bathroom ie her). Not sure how they'll argue why she didn't call out when hit by the first shot. Maybe that the first one hit her in the head? Poor woman.

Not saying that these assertions are in any way water-tight, just putting forward the answers that he has given to some of these questions.

sudaname - but if he shouted, "Reeva, there's an intruder, call the police" - maybe she'd think that there was, and just not realise that he meant her. God knows. It's a fucking mess. I realise that I am sounding like I'm defending him whatever here - and I'm not. But something (I'm not sure what) makes me think that he's telling the truth

I think he has a right to a fair unprejuduced trial, but he picked up a gun pointed it at some one and fired it, which resulted in someones death. He has to take responsibility for that not matter what the circumstances

Do you think the witness was lying?

I agree old raver.

I don't know about the witness - but there certainly seems to be some confusion - eg hearing 6 shots when there was only 4 etc. If the defence are right and the witness was 600 m away then I think they can't be relied on in this instance.

I still think he will be convicted. And I still don't think he is innocent in any event, obviously - he killed her and he intended to kill someone. But at the moment, I'm tending to believe him and wonder if in SA, the thought that you might be acting in self-defence is enough to qualify for self-defence and therefore mean manslaughter rather than murder. He'll surely get convicted of that at the least, but I suspect that he'll get convicted of murder. The press seem to be already there.

eek - not sure if self-defence (or perceived self-defence) reduces murder to manslaughter anyway (in the UK - certainly don't have a clue in SA) or is just a defence on it's own. It's a long time since my law school days!

I agree oldraver. I don't think he's trying to shirk responsibility for what happened though - he admits that he did it. He just argues that it wasn't pre-meditated.

It's legal to shoot someone in self-defence in SA, isn't it?

lego I've just read about him saying he called out on the news website too but that still doesn't make sense to me. If he called out, surely she would have answered, even to tell him to leave her alone cos she was on the loo?

It doesn't ring true to me but luckily the man making the decision will ave all the facts, unlike me!

but if it wasn't really self-defence, but just perceived self-defence (this is on the basis that his story is completely true) - is that the same? Not sure if it would just reduce his sentence to manslaughter. Dunno. I'm jumping several steps ahead here.

One thing that I do know is that his mildly petulant comments at the paralympics are nothing more than most of us could be prone to from time to time and to make the leap from that (as some have done - mainly in the press rather than here - ie "we saw his dark side") to premediated murder is even more preposterous than Oscar's story!!