Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

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

vivizone - For a minute there I thought you meant Oscar Pistorius had done a runner! Pun not intended.

The 'surprise' is actually what's missing. What is being argued by his defence counsel is that the shooting was a shock/surprise/instinct reaction to finding what he thought was an intruder in the house. What is being argued by the prosecution is a rather more deliberate and unhurried sequence of events. It's an interesting one, certainly.

does he use a wheelchair ever?

He doesn't use a wheelchair. He can walk on stumps, although I imagine not very well.

The details are just grim.

i guess it is just lawyers arguments. ridiculous.

He says he is "mortified" and was "deeply in love".

I think he is talking bollocks and is revealing it's all about him.

No, "I'm sorry" is evident, which I am sure it would be if he had made a mistake. Natural thing on making a mistake is to apologise.

Even for the no apology to her family, he is a grade A cunt.

what about innocent until proved guilty?

It's a statement to the court about bail.
It's probably been written by his lawyers anyway.

What about apologising for your mistakes?

I just don't know about this.

Scenario A - a paranoid, gun-loving high profile person who is constantly on the alert for intruders hears a noise in his bathroom in the middle of the night. In his sleepy, vulnerable (no prosethics on) state, he grams his gun, fires at the door and yells at his girlfriend to call for help.

Scenario B - A much loved hero has a violent temper and issues due to the pressures of fame and his earlier life, has a screaming row with his girlfriend, she runs to the bathroom to hide and he shoots her in a rage.

Either is plausible in my opinion. The forensics and evidence of his character is what will sway things.

Scenario A has so many holes in it, it is just you only have his word for it. Holes include:
Shooting through a locked door - why would an intruder lock the door anyway - but really, what a really weird thing to do...why would you not call the police at the point the intruder is locked in your bathroom? Why shoot?
He says he shouted at the intruder - she would have heard and said "it's me you dick"
He would have noticed her not being in the bed. It's just a given but hard to prove with only his word for it.

Hopefully there will be some witnesses as have been reported to them having rows that night which will give us some more clues.

The one thing that does ring alarm bells for me on scenario B is how quick he lost it with her, after 3 months? That is unusual for abusers.

The thing is, shooting at a locked door with an intruder in is wrong and I think if that happened in the uk you would be charged with murder. You can only defend yourself if you are being attacked, not your property or a locked toilet door. Not much of a defense really is it.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, Scenario A doesn't make his an innocent lamb, he's would still be a gun toting maniac!

I just feel there's enough room for doubt, in the absence of any DV evidence (which we don't know yet). And (reasonable) doubt means acquittal...

If you were in a house with someone else & you heard a noise in the en suite bathroom would you not first of all shout "is that you Reeva in there?" rather than shooting thro a locked door??

but did he try the door? or rather just shoot at it

Surely if you thought you'd heard an intruder then your first thought would be to ensure your girlfriend (sleeping in the same bed as you!) was safe, by touching or whispering to her.

Even if his story is true (and it sounds pretty weak to me) then he has still broken the law multiple times... a loaded gun under his bed which surely should be kept in a locked cabinet with ammunition separate. And killing someone who by any account posed no immediate threat to him.

Mooncup - he said he was up out of bed fetching a fan when he heard the 'intruder' so wouldn't have been in the bedroom. However he said he then retrieved his gun which he kept under the bed so presumably would have had to go into the bedroom and not see her for his story to be plausible.

I've just heard his 'defence' on the news and it's as full of holes as a barrel of arses. Reeva would surely have shouted back, as mcmooncup says.

What I think is odd is that she locked the door when she went to the bathroom in the middle of the night. I'd maybe shut it, but not lock it.

I sometimes lock the door behind me when me & DH are brushing our teeth. Force of habit.

Good point about why she locked the door. I wouldn't have said the average person would lock a loo door in the middle of the night. I would leave it wide open personally, if I was just going for a wee.

Also, the kind of intruders South Africans worry about aren't the kind to run and look themselves in a loo. As I understand it the paranoia stems from the fact that these people are likely to attack, kill or rape owners and so would have probably fired the first shots in being disturbed rather than hid. If you were in his shoes and you believed an intruder was locked in your loo wouldn't you call the police / security and guard the door in case they came out?
The whole thing is so tragic and I feel so sad for all of the families and friends involved.

It's not that unusual to lock the door, especially early on in a relationship. You try to maintain some allure at that stage!

He said he went to close the sliding door and get a fan, for someone so concerned with safety why was he sleeping with the sliding door open??

Also if he shouted out to the intruder who he thought was in the bathroom surely reeva would have answered back???

Mmm too many holes in that story, I am sure the prosecutors are thinking the same thing

His 'defence' as full of holes as a barrel of arses

Yes. I find his version of the story dubious to say the least - and she's not here to give her side. The neighbours reporting screams and shouting earlier in the evening speaks volumes.

But a national sporting hero always seems to be given the benefit of the doubt in the media.

Hopefully not in court, though.