Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

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

I just read on the sky website that the toilet was along a passage 7 meters away from the bedroom. Not exactly ensuite
Thanks MrsR

I just looked for the ensuite source article again but couldnt find it - perhaps its been edited?

I wonder if the bedroom has an ensuite?

[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-live-coverage this is a good article] It's the live feed from court. Scroll right down to the bottom and it says about the toilet being 7m away and the comment from the prosecutor that it was premeditated murder even if he thought it was a burglar.

Ah, the whole corridor thing makes sense now. I originally had visions of him reaching to the bedside table for the gun and shooting the ensuite door from the bed (having no legs on) in a couple of seconds at most from start to finish....

it's a totally different situation if he was up and walking around the house already (albeit on stumps) and if the bathroom was away along a corridor.

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-live-coverage Link fail. Try again.

Be careful with that guardian link - it froze my puter up for aaaaages because there was so much to load on the page

OP said he had some mobility without his blades but going onto the balcony for a fan ,closing the doors,then went to hall,then got gun from under bed and went and shot all without? And he did all that thinking there was an intruder and his gf never woke from the bed or got up to see what he was doing? I really hope this doesn't go the way it looks it might

onlymee, I didn't mean to suggest the cases are similar. Just that this case does put me in mind of the Anthony case simply in terms of somebody being so clearly guilty to most rational people but getting off on the reasonable doubt issue.

I'm not a lawyer.

Which way Noddy?

So, if he got the gun out and shot with the intention to kill whoever was behind the door (as in thinking it is an intruder) but is shooting to kill, does it then make it not pre meditated when he realises after "oh fuck, where is my Girlfriend who was sleeping in the bed"

I am trying to make sense and probably failing.

1.So, he got out the gun to scare away or injure an intruder.

2.Got the gun with the intention to shoot and kill the intruder

or 3. Meant to kill/injure Reeva.

So surely, 2 and 3 would be pre meditated as they are describing it here, as the intent was to shoot to kill, regardless of who the victim turned out to be?

I also did think, if he was very security conscious, why would you go to sleep with sliding balcony doors open. Where did he keep the gun, by the bed? So in the time it takes him to come in from the balcony, get the gun, and walk toward the bathroom door, while shouting out, he did not notice his GF not in the bed?

It is all a bit strange, the entire situation.

I think his defence is as plausible as the prosecution.

It seems there are two groups on mumsnet ... those that think the above and will wait to see what the trial throws up and those that believe this is a case of domestic violence and will have him hung drawn and quartered before he even gets to trial/ regardless of the outcome.

noddy I don't think he wears his "blades" around the house surely?!

ah, x posted, you answered my question there...

applepieinthesky Tue 19-Feb-13 15:07:37
"Scroll right down to the bottom and it says about the toilet being 7m away and the comment from the prosecutor that it was premeditated murder even if he thought it was a burglar."

I disagree wiley - I think there are people who think it is probably a case of DV and are waiting for the trial to see what the evidence says. there are also people who are desperate to believe that he didn't do it and are making every crap excuse under the sun to explain it away.

His defence is unbelievably weak.

I haven't seen anyone say he's not guilty.... Although haven't followed all of the threads.

Have seen people say he did it without a doubt though.

Noddy, got to admit, that did make me smile too. I think he wears artificial legs most of the time and blades for running. You'd get fed up of boinging around your house eventually.

Sorry I meant that he premeditated killing her not that he murdered her as that is true without a shadow of a doubt.

re the DV, I'm finding it really hard to get my head around thinking that a relationship could escalate re DV so badly when it was only 2 months old. They should still have been in the honeymoon stage. And would this bright attractive successful women have continued a new relationship with someone, even a huge celebrity, if DV was in the picture so very early on?

I'm not saying it couldn't happen and I'm sure there are MN'er who will know DV facts and perhaps could comment on this possibility. But I do find it hard to imagine that.

Also, for the record I do think he could have killed her. But I don't know how credible it is that a DV situation could have been ongoing and so major a part of the relationship after only 2 months.

sorry - ".... could have killed her intentionally!" Clearly he killed her :(

I don't think he did it without a doubt at all. It's too early to say for sure. But I don't see how anyone could say he's not guilty either. And the story about why he did what he did has lots of logical holes in it. Of course human beings aren't always logical. But atm it looks like he was physically responsible for shooting at someone and the explanation of why he did it without either imagining that the person in his bathroom might be Reeva is IMO a weak one.

On the other Oscar Pistorius thread I mentioned that the concept of "premeditated" was irrelevant to the question of determining whether he is guilty of murder or not. While this is true, a murder which is "planned or premeditated" is categorised as a so-called "Schedule 6 offence" and is subject to more stringent bail and sentencing conditions. In summary, the accused must show that "exceptional circumstances exist which in the interests of justice permit his or her release" on bail, and if found guilty, is subject to a mandatory life sentence unless "substantial and compelling circumstances" exist to justify a lesser sentence.

The term "premeditated" was introduced by statute for the purposes of categorising offences for procedural and sentencing purposes in, I think 1997. It isn't defined in the legislation which refers to it, and isn't the same as "mens rea" (the intention required to prove the crime of murder), hence a bit of hemming and hawing about what it actually means. A full bench of the Cape High Court analysed the term in 2009 - a copy of their judgment can be read here - www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl?file=za/cases/ZAWCHC/2008/72.html&query=%22premeditated%20murder%22 (from paragraph 15 onward). A High Court judgment is binding on a magistrate's court.

On the sliding door - I have security gates on my sliding doors, and often sleep with the doors open (but the gates locked). Not sure if I would do so if I felt afraid or threatened though, as there is always the possibility of someone pushing something (eg a gun!) through the gate.

Would you REALLY shoot through a closed (or locked) door without being fairly sure who was behind it? If he had the gun and was pointing it at the door, surely saying something along the lines of "I have a gun pointed at you, identify yourself" would not take a huge stretch of brainpower.

Re the 7 meter corridor. The defence say he walked up & shot through the door. Cld you not fire from 7 meters away (on his stumps or legs) and (being a crack shot as the papers over the weekend state) hit with accuracy?

There are holes in both the defence and the prosecution.

Irrespective, he shot & he killed.

I meant prosthetics! Sorry He says he has limited mobility without