Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

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

I agree the various test results are going to be the crux for both sides.

I would imagine the fact the door was locked will be a non issue for the defence, as will Reeva being in a hiding position. They will say that she went to the toilet, heard Oscar shout about an intruder, lock the door and get into hiding position. Hence why she didn't call out as she wouldn't know whether it was OP or an intruder.

As for the witness who heard shouting, but couldn't confirm who it was, they will e made mince meat of in the witness box as they also said they heard 3 shots, 17 minutes passed then 3 more shots. The police have confirmed this is incorrect so I would imagine they will be deemed unreliable.

The balcony doors, well they will say the couple just nodded off. He was already in bed at 10pm whilst she was doing yoga. He will say when he awoke they were open.

^ this is not necessarily what I think just what I think the defence will put forward.

Thank you HelenMN for removing that word

I wish I could see-saw but I`m struggling with the four shots to me he intended to kill, after each shot is a pause.

bunch that is indeed how the defence countered the prosecutions claims. They also got the distance wrong by 300 meters.

why would he have needles in his possession?

One of the reports indicated that the remedy in question can be taken by injection - if the report is accurate it would explain the presence of the needles.

currentbuns
The prosecutor did originally say 600m and then amended it to 300m - still a hell of a way to hear what was going on where.

All so sad.

see it doesn't fit with a profile of domestic violence that there were no other injuries. If she were running away to hide for instance it's likely he would already have been violent, and even if only vaguely so there would be signs - there weren't.

So if he shot her through the door intending to kill her, why?

So, if we say it´s reasonable to think it was an intruder, & reasonable on thinking that to get a gun-is it then reasonable to shoot that gun without actually knowing where other occupants are?

Is it OK just to "think" that they are in bed?

It doesn't sound like a lot of 'thinking' was going on diddl, whatever way it went down.
It was more shoot first, think later, either way, OP acted totally recklessly.

I think the premeditated murder won't stick but given the poor/dangerous decisions he made that ultimately cost Reeva her life, he should serve some kind of sentence. He's made a series of decisions that had deadly consequences for an innocent woman. Again, assuming his version is the correct one.

With prosthetics OP is just a shade over 6foot.

Without he would only be around 4ft wouldn't he?

has anything been made about the height of the bullet holes in the door?

600m at night is very different to 600m during the day - if it was arguing it would also be at volume ...

Only that the police officer has stated his view of the angle of the trajectory is based on his experience and not on the outcome of their investigation. That part of the investigation hasn't been concluded yet, or if it has, it's not been relief upon yet by the prosecution.

It's about context. In that environment a 'shoot or be shot' mentality isn't uncommon. People's levels of fear/paranoia can result in 'shoot first, ask questions later'.
Not an excuse but an explanation.
Regardless of the outcome of a trial it's tragic for all.

Relied.

"Lily, you've just proved yourself also to be an armchair judge."

Not at all. Just offering an alternative to the 'hanging mob' on here. I'm not making a judgement either way, just countering some of the wild claims on here, because the tabloids would LOVE him to be convicted.

I haven't heard the evidence, and as such have no idea if he is telling the truth or not. As far as going to a violent prison and having his prosthetic legs taken away and forced to use a wheelchair, I think that is inhumane for anyone.

Nancy The prosecution have already said that the trajectory of the bullets was "down" from the upper part of the door. If this true then it proves he was wearing his legs. I don't think the defence said anything much about this except question the detective about his expertise in ballistics (which is not much). So, it remains to be seen.

One of the bullets was found in the hall. This is odd.

If you were thinking rationally if course you would try & ascertain where the other person was. However if you heard a noise, recalled the bathroom window was open and there were ladders nearby, and that, despite being possibly paranoid about attack/robbery, I think rationality might not come into it. Reacting instinctively to a perceived threat is what I can see this far. Horrendous consequences.
Hand on heart I have woken suddenly in the night convinced there was a burglar in the house and its turned out to be DH having gone to the toilet.
It isn't that an absurd judgement to arrive it, is it?

Ellie that hasn't been confirmed yet from the investigation - it's based on the investigating police officer's experience so could yet turn out to be wrong. It will be key though as the height/trajectory will either support OP's version or completely destroy it.

I'm with you thefirstmrsrochester

No, I know bunch - but it was raised by the prosecution, which was what Nancy was asking. There's clearly room for doubt given that it was just the unqualified police officer's view & not that of an expert.

But if he recalled the open window & the ladders-he was thinking pretty rationally?

Why wouldn´t he check that windows were locked before retiring, though?

And don't forget - the police missed finding one of the bullets (lodged in the toilet) - this was only found by the defence's forensic team!

FFS.

Nancy - I have read an article saying he is 5'2 without his legs and just over 6ft with them. (can't find it now, I think it was something to do with Nike). Quite a height difference.

I don't know how ballisitcs and forensics work, if they can tell if he was wearing his legs or not? Certainly they can in CSI but in real life? A policeman friend is very scathing of that sort of thing.

I think the window was broken and people were out to fix it then couldn't hence the perceived security issue and also the ladders being near. The open patio doors? I dont think i am alone in have been lax about locking up, especially after a few drinks.
That drinks has been had is pure speculation on my part of course. And that of the Telegraph which has been ridiculously sensational throughout.