Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

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

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!

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

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.