Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

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

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.

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.