Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

RGDATA!

BluE-WinG wrote: »

Nobody here seems to notice what he did was not that unusual for South Africa.

i've heard anecdotal stuff from South Africans that is quite scary alright.

you'd still wonder, if someone was that paranoid about security, why go to bed with your balcony door open and ladders outside your house?
and the idea that someone would get up in the dead of the night to go to the bathroom, put headphones on and then lock the door seems a little out of the ordinary.

TwoBirds

opinion guy wrote: »

Get down on your kness and try it yourself - crawl. He is probably a bit faster than you due to lifelong practice and being an olympic athlete

Yep, fair point.

DebDynamite wrote: »

So he got up in the middle of the night to retrieve the fan from the balcony. If he had woken her, which he obviously did, you would think she would have made some kind of noise; a groan, a stretch, a "what are you at? It's 3am", "just nipping to the loo for a pee"...

There was probably some kind of light shining in from the balcony door as it was left open, he was already up and awake, so his eyes would've become accustomed to the dark, there was no door in the bathroom, so unless she went to the toilet in complete darkness, there should've been some kind of light shining into the bedroom to help him see that Reeva was not in the bed.

It just doesn't add up for me.

She could have been woken by him making noise on the balcony as he retrieved the fan, rather than him getting out of the bed, ie. he might not have been in the room as she woke.
When he closed the blinds/curtains or whatever after coming back in from the balcony, the room would have become darker and his eyes would have had to re-accustom again. As for her going to the bathroom in complete darkness - I always tend to grope my way to the bathroom at night because I hate the 'blinding' sensation when switching on a light after being asleep. Also, OP was still out on the balcony (with the sliding door and blinds open) when she got up to go to the bathroom, so she would've benefitted from the light coming in that way.

Just playing devil's advocate. His story seems bizarre but as the investigating officer admitted, there's nothing in his account that (at this point) can be absolutely and doubtlessly refuted.

Micky Dolenz

I didn't realise the toilet was just a cubicle. If you shot at the door you were going to hit the person in that cubicle.

Dontfadeaway

seenitall wrote: »

^^ There's a goodly amount of (not very plausible IMO) 'if''s in the above as well: headphones, fell asleep on the loo?? That's really reaching. And he shoots to kill through a door without ascertaining that that his girlfriend is either safe, or at the very least not the person on the loo.

No, sorry, I'm not an ex-south african so feel free to discount my opinion all you like, but I'll never believe such a story as that.

What does make perfect, plausible, horrific sense to me, though, is that he did everything he did if he meant to kill his girlfriend, who had locked herself in the loo.

I agree with you. It makes no sense, if he called her, she would've responded, why wouldn't she?

wonderfullife

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I didn't realise the toilet was just a cubicle. If you shot at the door you were going to hit the person in that cubicle.

Yup.

Using the measurements from the FloorPlan presented in court, his account is this:

1. He woke up, crawled 11.4 feet on his stumps to the balcony to fetch a fan, to close the balcony door and close the curtains. Given there was no rush to do this i'm presuming that took over a minute.

2. He hears a noise, crawls the 8.2 feet back to her side of the bed, reaches underneath the bed for his gun.

3. He then crawls another 33.7 feet on his stumps to outside the cubicle door. Opens fire with 4 shots.

4. Then crawls the same distance back to the bed, realises bed is empty, finds his prosthetics, puts them on, gets a cricket bat and goes back, breaks the door down.


All of the above, when outlined like that, is bordering on laughable. In terms people are accepting it as plausible.

He shot at her 4 times, by his own admission she was alive for a considerable time afterwards, and he wants us to believe he was not aware he shot her until he crawled a total of 67 feet forward and back to the bed after shooting her? That she made zero noise during or after being shot? If you are shot 3 times and in agony, any human being will scream/moan/make noise/beg for help.

We are supposed to believe in the "pitch dark" he could not make out if his girlfriend was in his bed, but was able to navigate perfectly from the balcony, to the bed to get his gun, to the bathroom, to a spot perfectly outside the cubicle door? We are supposed to believe in an open-plan master bedroom with outside sources of light, there was no source of light emanating from elsewhere? Including the bathroom, there are 4 windows and a balcony sliding door in his bedroom. In pictures from the gated community it showed outside lights. It showed neighbouring houses. Sources of outside light aplenty. By every account available there were 5 phones between the bedroom and bathroom all of which were turned on. Even if all were on power-save, the front of a mobile phone is a good reflector of any light.

We are supposed to believe Pistorius thought there was an intruder after climbing through the cubicle window and locked themselves in it. Not only would that be illogical and unlikely, it would be practically difficult as the cubicle window had a width of 1.3 feet wide. The cubicle itself was effectively a 4 feet x 4 feet square.

Anyway, TL;DR probably but the implausibility mounts for his version of events imo.

Seachmall

Just a note: people keep saying he's crawling. Given how long he's been without legs (and that he's an olympic athlete) I'd be extremely surprised if he couldn't walk at this stage.

7 7 12

Wow over an hour since a post here, what's happening?? Ahhh!!!! I need my updated analysis of the most minute irrelevant detail re this (alleged) murder

aidan24326

BluE-WinG wrote: »

^^ Thinking about it from another point of view. He had called out for her numerous times. No response - Something was wrong, he saw the window open, the bathroom door locked and panicked. No answer from his GF, he KNEW someone was in there - For all he knew, the intruder had already killed his GF - He shot to kill.

Mistaken identity has claimed many many lives in south africa and it cannot be discounted as a possibility.

Yes, it is reaching, still damn plausible IMO.

When you look at the details of the thing, it's reaching quite a bit in all honesty. The bottom line is that you don't fire 4 bullets through a door without having some idea of who is on the other side of it, and in particular establishing that it definitely wasn't your girlfriend. You shout a warning before you start pumping bullets into an unseen target, you make sure you're not shooting at your own gf/wife/son/daughter or whoever else might be staying in your house at the time. And there's simply no getting away from that.

Seachmall wrote: »

Just a note: people keep saying he's crawling. Given how long he's been without legs (and that he's an olympic athlete) I'd be extremely surprised if he couldn't walk at this stage.

He is able to walk on his stumps* so presumably would not have been crawling.

*afaik in his own testimony he stated that he walked to the balcony on his stumps, didn't have the prosthetics in place at that stage.

wonderfullife

Ok i'm probably in need of a hobby but i'm fascinated by these sort of cases (OJ Simpson, Louise Woodward etc) so i had a think about a few things:

1. The defence asserted that the witness who heard screams was 300 metres away, thereby casting doubt on the validity of the assertions.

However, on the night in question, it was 15 degrees celsius and 68% relative humidity. This is reflected in the fact Oscar Pistorius claims he went to get a fan from the balcony.

Sound travels faster and farther at higher humidity (generally 57% farther and 0.6% faster). Generally speaking sound is also more easily discernible at night time.

A dog barking can have a decibel range of 60-100db. A woman can scream at up to 130db. Female tennis players have been recorded "grunting" at up to 115db.

Hearing screams or arguments at 300 metre distance is most definitely realistic.

2. If you examine the pictures contained in this link (the pics show in very clear detail Pistorius balcony and housing complex) http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-here-is-the-gated-community-where-oscar-pistorius-allegedly-killed-his-girlfriend-2013-2 you can see there are multiple houses around and opposite the balcony end of the house. The fact he claims he went to close the curtains means there was obviously outside light coming in to the room. There are also houses on the bathroom window side of things too.

There is also a 3-metre wall surrounding the gated community, gates at the front entrance and security on duty. How or why he lived in such "fear" is questionable - made more questionable by sleeping with balcony doors open and ladders left against windows!!

I think it's fair to question if he had to get up to close the balcony sliding doors and close the curtains, what likelihood there was a) blinds on all windows and b) that these blinds were down.

In short, i'm not buying the pitch-blackness of the room. I would hope that police took multiple photos of every aspect of the room. The Judge could then take a walk through the room at night with a similar set of lighting and see what visibility was there.

Rascasse

wonderfullife wrote: »

2. If you examine the pictures contained in this link (the pics show in very clear detail Pistorius balcony and housing complex) http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-here-is-the-gated-community-where-oscar-pistorius-allegedly-killed-his-girlfriend-2013-2 you can see there are multiple houses around and opposite the balcony end of the house. The fact he claims he went to close the curtains means there was obviously outside light coming in to the room. There are also houses on the bathroom window side of things too.

There is also a 3-metre wall surrounding the gated community, gates at the front entrance and security on duty. How or why he lived in such "fear" is questionable - made more questionable by sleeping with balcony doors open and ladders left against windows!!

I think it's fair to question if he had to get up to close the balcony sliding doors and close the curtains, what likelihood there was a) blinds on all windows and b) that these blinds were down.

In short, i'm not buying the pitch-blackness of the room. I would hope that police took multiple photos of every aspect of the room. The Judge could then take a walk through the room at night with a similar set of lighting and see what visibility was there.

I think you're misunderstanding the statement. He isn't saying they were asleep with the curtains and balcony doors open, he is just starting the story after he had brought the fan in. Also the ladders weren't against the windows, they were left on his premises by builders.

The sequence (as I understand it) is;

1. He wakes up, opens up the balcony goes out, pulls fan in (girlfriend goes to loo).
2. On pulling the fan in he closes the balcony, pulls the curtains (room now completely dark), hears noises coming from bathroom.
3. Panicking, he grabs his gun.....

No chance a celebrity and his girlfriend will sleep with the curtains open (privacy) or balcony doors open (privacy, security and the room would be full of flying roaches and other nasties in the morning).

Whether or not it's true is for another day.

wonderfullife

Rascasse wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding the statement. He isn't saying they were asleep with the curtains and balcony doors open, he is just starting the story after he had brought the fan in. Also the ladders weren't against the windows, they were left on his premises by builders.

The sequence (as I understand it) is;

1. He wakes up, opens up the balcony goes out, pulls fan in (girlfriend goes to loo).
2. On pulling the fan in he closes the balcony, pulls the curtains (room now completely dark), hears noises coming from bathroom.
3. Panicking, he grabs his gun.....

No chance a celebrity and his girlfriend will sleep with the curtains open (privacy) or balcony doors open (privacy, security and the room would be full of flying roaches and other nasties in the morning).

Whether or not it's true is for another day.

No!

Quote:

" In a statement read out in court by his lawyer, Pistorius said that he and Steenkamp were in bed asleep when he awoke and went to the balcony to close a sliding door and get a fan. At that point he heard a noise in the bathroom and felt a "sense of terror" rush through him, he said, fearing it was an intruder. He was scared and did not switch on the light, the athlete said."

His statement in court states he went to the balcony in order to close an open door. Very clear.

Rascasse

wonderfullife wrote: »

No!

Quote:

" In a statement read out in court by his lawyer, Pistorius said that he and Steenkamp were in bed asleep when he awoke and went to the balcony to close a sliding door and get a fan. At that point he heard a noise in the bathroom and felt a "sense of terror" rush through him, he said, fearing it was an intruder. He was scared and did not switch on the light, the athlete said."

His statement in court states he went to the balcony in order to close an open door. Very clear.

Yes!

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.

Here is the transcript. Your quote is inaccurate.

wonderfullife

Rascasse wrote: »

Yes!

Here is the transcript. Your quote is inaccurate.

NO!

Edit:

"Nel recalls Pistorius saying he was worried about crime so kept a gun under his bed. Yet he went to bed with the balcony doors open, he asks."

Prosecutor stated in court that Pistorius balcony door was open before he went to bed. Defence did not challenge this as untrue.

Prosecution

Botha said that Pistorius had never made complaints to police about violence or death threats against him (the defendant said he had suffered from crime and death threats yesterday). The prosecuting lawyer, Gerrie Nel, asked why Pistorius would sleep with his balcony doors open if he was so scared about crime.

Defence

Roux said that Pistorius in fact had reported some threats made against him to the Hawks, a special police unit. He did not answer the point about the balcony doors.

The balcony door was OPEN when they went to bed.

lavelle72

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't think he knew the door was locked when he fired into it.

My understanding is that the toilet is a seperate room to the bathroom ie. just a jacks...which leads me to wonder why an "intruder" would think "oh, i'll just go quickly while I'm here"

gramar

Could it be possible that he got up to get the fan and while he was on the balcony she, woken up by him got up and went into the toilet without hom realising. He hears her in the bathroom but thinks she is still in bed at which point he takes out the gun and fires four shots at the bathroom door
taking her for an intruder.
As a sequence of events it seem plausible but as reasonable actions by Pistorious in not seeing/checking that his girlfriend wasn't in bed and not warning anyone before he shot etc it seems difficult to believe.

sunflower27

gramar wrote: »

Could it be possible that he got up to get the fan and while he was on the balcony she, woken up by him got up and went into the toilet without hom realising. He hears her in the bathroom but thinks she is still in bed at which point he takes out the gun and fires four shots at the bathroom door
taking her for an intruder.
As a sequence of events it seem plausible but as reasonable actions by Pistorious in not seeing/checking that his girlfriend wasn't in bed and not warning anyone before he shot etc it seems difficult to believe.

I think his first thought would be totell his girlfriend to be quiet, he thinks there is an intruder and he is going to get his gun. If the gun was under the bed, she was right there.

A real tragedy for her and her family.

robinph

From the tweets coming from court so far looks like the magistrate isn't convinced of the case to remand him by the prosecution.

The Road Runner

He might get bail. its funny how opinions are swaying, from what i read in the beginning i was sure he was guilty of murder. now, not so sure. it seems unlikely but not totally impossible hes telling the truth

gramar

The Road Runner wrote: »

He might get bail. its funny how opinions are swaying, from what i read in the beginning i was sure he was guilty of murder. now, not so sure. it seems unlikely but not totally impossible hes telling the truth

I think that's most people's take on his version - unlikely but not impossible.

viper006

I can see him being granted bail in the end. There is an article i read last night about the prison he would be sent to if denied bail and it sounded appalling. I cant see the judge sending such a high profile person with such a disability to that kind of prison. Nel hasnt convinced the judge fully he should be denied bail either so i think he will get bail.

I thought the comments from his coach were disgusting though that he will def get bail and hopefully be light training within 1-2 weeks. As if nothing happened.

robinph

viper006 wrote: »

I can see him being granted bail in the end. There is an article i read last night about the prison he would be sent to if denied bail and it sounded appalling. I cant see the judge sending such a high profile person with such a disability to that kind of prison. Nel hasnt convinced the judge fully he should be denied bail either so i think he will get bail.

I thought the comments from his coach were disgusting though that he will def get bail and hopefully be light training within 1-2 weeks. As if nothing happened.

The coach should have kept his mouth shut.

This truly is a bizarre, tragic occurence. I, like many posters in this forum, have been convinced of OP's guilt since news of the case broke. However, in the last few hours while reading up on as much as I could about the case I came to a realisation; I actually know f**king nothing.

The chain of events that I had lead myself to believe went like the following;

I thought that since OP had no legs from the knees down, this surely would have lead to a big insecurity in his life especially within relationships. He gets a sniff/notion that his perfect 10, adored by dolphins girlfriend is texting someone she shouldn't be texting in the form of a big hunky able-bodied Springbok. This is where a confrontation begins.

They row but OP is shouting louder and getting quite animated. Reeva runs off to the toilet just to get out of the situation, catch her breath for a few minutes. OP is still riled up from this fresh revelation and wants to continue the talk but as long as he remains this wound-up Reeva doesn't want to know. His pleas and knocks on the door aren't proving successful, but the longer she refuses to come out the more of a rage OP is boiling in to. Eventually, he warns her that if she doesn't open the door he's going to bust it down.

Now I myself would try to kick a door in, and if that failed I wouldn't know what to do as i'd hardly think my fists would succeed where my legs failed. Given that OP can't kick a door in, my thoughts were that after giving her ample warning that he was going to shoot at the door, he did it. On pulling the trigger 4 times he assumes that he will break/bust the door and that Reeva will have ducked down or clung to the side of the cubicle wall. Reeva of course assumes that there's no possible way that the man who loves her will shoot in her direction, and maintains her current and final stance in the cubicle. He shoots, then opens the door to see that he will forever want more than anyone else to be able to turn back time. The end.

So there, that's what my brain created from a few news snippets and a bit of reading. This time last week I hadn't even a clue who these people were and now I'm intrigued. Now at this moment I no longer believe what i've written above, not because I think it is wrong, but because of some of the stupidity I have witnessed and heard of in this world, the kind of stupidity that could mean OP's version of events are true. No one will truly ever know what happened apart from him and her, and no matter how it went down her last few minutes on earth must have been so harrowing and confusing.

R.I.P. Reeva Steencamp,
I'd have checked to see if you were still sleeping.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

So what actually is this obvious sequence of events that you are proposing happened? I've not seen it yet other than the claims of people doing things differently and spotting that the girlfriend wasn't in the bed.
Her running away to hide in the loo to get away from a man with no legs is just as daft as you claim Pistouris story is.

he was trying to murder the bathroom door and she just happened to be behind it. that was your input wasn't it. :rolleyes:

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

he was trying to murder the bathroom door and she just happened to be behind it. that was your input wasn't it. :rolleyes:

Essentially, and that is what the defence are going for:

BarryBateman on twitter wrote:

Roux tells Nair, by his clients own version they'll seek a charge of culpable homicide. BB

seamus

robinph wrote: »

Essentially, and that is what the defence are going for:

I haven't been able to find any detail on the minutae of culpable homicide -v- murder in SA law. OK, so at the simplest level it's negligence -v- intent.

But is the argument here that OP didn't intend to killed Reeva or that he didn't intend to kill anyone?

Because the former is quite easy to assert, the latter not so much.

robinph

seamus wrote: »

I haven't been able to find any detail on the minutae of culpable homicide -v- murder in SA law. OK, so at the simplest level it's negligence -v- intent.

But is the argument here that OP didn't intend to killed Reeva or that he didn't intend to kill anyone?

Because the former is quite easy to assert, the latter not so much.

Think that is about it.

The fact that the toilet is just a cubicle it will be a hard task for them to get him off the "intent to kill" whoever was behind the door.

The prosecution would have to prove that he knew that Reeva was behind the door to satisfy their pre-meditated murder of the girlfriend charge. The defence will have to prove there was reason for him to fear for his life from the person he thought was behind the door.

The defence accept that he wanted to kill or severely wound the person behind the door.

robinph

Judgement on the bail at 2pm SA time, think that is midday.

robinph

BBC News feed wrote:

0949: Defence lawyer Barry Roux has been giving a legal masterclass about the difference between "dolus directis" and "dolus eventualis". In layman's terms, dolus directis is when you always intended an action - ie, the victim was the intended target - and dolus eventualis is when your action produces an unintended consequence - ie, the victim was not the intended target. Mr Roux is arguing that Mr Pistorius' case is the second category.

.

fishy fishy

funny that if he didn't intend to kill the person in the toilet why was he firing shots in there. :rolleyes:

Mental Mickey

robinph wrote: »

.

Who was the intended target then? The f**king shower door???

seamus

That obviously makes a difference in SA law then. I understand they have departed significantly on the legal stuff around homicide, when compared to us, the UK, the US, etc.

Over here there would be no distinction in the victim - if the intention was to kill someone, then it's murder when someone dies. The victim is irrelevant.

Who was the intended target then? The f**king shower door???

The intruder that he believed was in there.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

funny that if he didn't intend to kill the person in the toilet why was he firing shots in there. :rolleyes:

Please keep up. He did intend to kill or serious disable the person behind the door, the defence just said this by their statement of going for culpable homicide. He did not intend to kill his girlfriend as the prosecution are claiming.

TwoBirds

Judging by this morning's proceedings, the magistrate seems skeptical about Pistorius being a flight risk (d'oh). I feel like he's going to get bail.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

Please keep up. He did intend to kill or serious disable the person behind the door, the defence just said this by their statement of going for culpable homicide. He did not intend to kill his girlfriend as the prosecution are claiming.

he did intend to kill someone - what would you call that then??


no offense but your posts gets more bizarre by the day - he did intend to kill SOMEONE but not his girlfriend - ah thats alright then, easy mistake to make - better luck next time?

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

he did intend to kill someone - what would you call that then??


no offense but your posts gets more bizarre by the day - he did intend to kill SOMEONE but not his girlfriend - ah thats alright then, easy mistake to make - better luck next time?

Culpable homicide, as the defence stated they are pushing for.

Are you still missing the point that that is different from pre-meditated murder of his girlfriend?

opinion guy

So my thinking has shifted slightly towards the premeditated side. Not because of anything the inept prosecution has said mind you and not because of any of the muckraking attempts of past violence - those stores don't wash with me - too much claims by people with something to gain.

I for the most part find Pistorius version more plausible than the cops version - in particular I cannot see any motive for him to kill her after a 2 month relationship and plenty of motive not to kill her.

But the one thing that's been growing in my mind and is bugging me is the delay in calling for help - particularly since she was still alive. So agree timeline is shot between 2-3 right ? And ambulance called at 3.19 right ???? What happened in between ? Did it take that long to find his legs, bash down the door etc etc ? Did the defence offer some explanation ?

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

So my thinking has shifted slightly towards the premeditated side. Not because of anything the inept prosecution has said mind you and not because of any of the muckraking attempts of past violence - those stores don't wash with me - too much claims by people with something to gain.

I for the most part find Pistorius version more plausible than the cops version - in particular I cannot see any motive for him to kill her after a 2 month relationship and plenty of motive not to kill her.

But the one thing that's been growing in my mind and is bugging me is the delay in calling for help - particularly since she was still alive. So agree timeline is shot between 2-3 right ? And ambulance called at 3.19 right ???? What happened in between ? Did it take that long to find his legs, bash down the door etc etc ? Did the defence offer some explanation ?

he was calling his family / lawyer I believe. NOT something you would do if you were interested in saving your girlfriends life imo. But surely you knew this all along. Why the sudden turnaround.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

he was calling his family / lawyer I believe. NOT something you would do if you were interested in saving your girlfriends life imo. But surely you knew this all along. Why the sudden turnaround.

Don't tell me what I know.

I want to know more details about it. I largely missed that section from the court proceedings - I hadn't discovered the live tweets from the court reporters at that point. I want to know what the stories and counter-stories on this were. Unlike you I'm not going to jsut assume. I want evidence, or at leat to know where the evidence is missing

What turnaround ? I said slightly shifted towards - I did not say I changed my mind. I believe in following the evidence - this hasn't changed. It may be hard for you to understand but following the evidence allows you to change your mind - having a predetermined opinion like you do does not allow you to change your mind

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

Don't tell me what I know.

I want to know more details about it. I largely missed that section from the court proceedings - I hadn't discovered the live tweets from the court reporters at that point. I want to know what the stories and counter-stories on this were. Unlike you I'm not going to jsut assume. I want evidence, or at leat to know where the evidence is missing

What turnaround ? I said slightly shifted towards - I did not say I changed my mind. I believe in following the evidence - this hasn't changed. It may be hard for you to understand but following the evidence allows you to change your mind - having a predetermined opinion like you do does not allow you to change your mind

you know your posts come across as extremely arrogant and bad minded. not sure if you are posting this way, but they don't come across very well. you don't seem to understand people who see things different. a bad trait to have.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

you know your posts come across as extremely arrogant and bad minded. not sure if you are posting this way, but they don't come across very well. you don't seem to understand people who see things different. a bad trait to have.

Coming from the person who can't see any alternative viewpoints on the case that is most ironic

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

Coming from the person who can't see any alternative viewpoints on the case that is most ironic

sorry, no, I just see things different to you thats all. However I can see that you have no time for that. Also, you seem not to have known what the rest of us knew re. the time span in calling for help. Maybe this is why you were so adamant in your opinion.

or else, you are just covering all angles with your turnaround so you can say "i told you so" no matter what happens. :)

robinph

opinion guy wrote: »

So my thinking has shifted slightly towards the premeditated side. Not because of anything the inept prosecution has said mind you and not because of any of the muckraking attempts of past violence - those stores don't wash with me - too much claims by people with something to gain.

I for the most part find Pistorius version more plausible than the cops version - in particular I cannot see any motive for him to kill her after a 2 month relationship and plenty of motive not to kill her.

But the one thing that's been growing in my mind and is bugging me is the delay in calling for help - particularly since she was still alive. So agree timeline is shot between 2-3 right ? And ambulance called at 3.19 right ???? What happened in between ? Did it take that long to find his legs, bash down the door etc etc ? Did the defence offer some explanation ?

The timing is a bit of a question, but the only exact time that is known is the time that the ambulance was called, or other calls made. Witnesses are so far non-existent or unreliable due to location, and their timings will be unreliable as well.
I guess it takes a few minutes to put his legs on and then smash the door in with the cricket bat. The sequence and timings of everything are curious, but do not indicate pre-meditated murder of his girlfriend without something else to back that claim.

opinion guy

robinph wrote: »

The timing is a bit of a question, but the only exact time that is known is the time that the ambulance was called, or other calls made. Witnesses are so far non-existent or unreliable due to location, and their timings will be unreliable as well.
I guess it takes a few minutes to put his legs on and then smash the door in with the cricket bat. The sequence and timings of everything are curious, but do not indicate pre-meditated murder of his girlfriend without something else to back that claim.

Yeah those are kind of my thoughts. I really find it amazing that the cops hadn't pulled phone records for this bail hearing. I mean is that somehow difficult ??!

The Road Runner

opinion guy wrote: »

But the one thing that's been growing in my mind and is bugging me is the delay in calling for help - particularly since she was still alive. So agree timeline is shot between 2-3 right ? And ambulance called at 3.19 right ???? What happened in between ? Did it take that long to find his legs, bash down the door etc etc ? Did the defence offer some explanation ?

I'm trying to put myself in his shoes for a minute. Presuming he's innocent, if I just shot my girlfriend through the door thinking she was a thief i think my brain would just melt down. I guess i would feel that, this looks bad, this looks like i killed her on purpose, I would probably ring someone for help. Your brain would just shut down i reckon. But if she was still alive and he knew it there is no excusing not ringing an ambulance straight away.

Seachmall

She may not of died immediately but she may have lost consciousness and he presumed her to be dead. I know the logical thing, regardless, is to call an ambulance but given the circumstances I wouldn't be surprised if he spent time crying and/or holding her.

I'd be interested to learn how long it took him to break the lock on the door with a cricket bat, especially without legs (force builds from the legs in everything from golf to boxing and you need a strong footing to develop it effectively).

But of course, it's impossible to suppose how we would react (because none of us know) and judge him by that (because we're not him).

ArmaniJeanss

opinion guy wrote: »

Yeah those are kind of my thoughts. I really find it amazing that the cops hadn't pulled phone records for this bail hearing. I mean is that somehow difficult ??!

I know in America its quite a difficult thing to do with signed court orders needed to force the hand of reluctant phone companies, and delays of weeks ensuing.

Obviously this is South Africa not USA, but I suspect that phone companies are probably as intractable the world over.

robinph

Live audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JZB3pwgxvY&feature=youtu.be

The Road Runner

Seachmall wrote: »

I'd be interested to learn how long it took him to break the lock on the door with a cricket bat, especially without legs (force builds from the legs in everything from golf to boxing and you need a strong footing to develop it effectively).

good point. also it could go some way in explaining why neighbours might of heard shouting coming from the place. i doubt if he was smashing the door down after realizing who he just shot that he would be doing it in silence. screaming in anger and frustration and bang bang bang with the cricket bat. wasn't there something about the neighbour saying they heard shouting and 8 shots/bangs coming from the house. it could of been him working on the door

The Road Runner

it's on there now

opinion guy

The Road Runner wrote: »

good point. also it could go some way in explaining why neighbours might of heard shouting coming from the place. i doubt if he was smashing the door down after realizing who he just shot that he would be doing it in silence. screaming in anger and frustration and bang bang bang with the cricket bat. wasn't there something about the neighbour saying they heard shouting and 8 shots/bangs coming from the house. it could of been him working on the door

Yeah I was wondering about the 8 shots thing. I thought it was very odd the cops presented that as evidence considering it conflicted with the 4 shots known to be fired.