Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

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

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.

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.