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

robinph

April O Neill wrote: »

This bit is WTF?

Reeva wasn't in the bed, and someone was in the bathroom. Now who could that be????

Nope. His version is Reeva was in bed and he told her someone was in the bathroom, he shoots at the bathroom when he hears further sounds there, goes back to bed and see that it is empty.... it's at that point he realises what happened according to his version of events.

April O Neill

robinph wrote: »

Nope. His version is Reeva was in bed and he told her someone was in the bathroom, he shoots at the bathroom when he hears further sounds there, goes back to bed and see that it is empty.... it's at that point he realises what happened according to his version of events.

Oh I get that. It's just sounds like a crock, that's all. My first assumption would be that the person in the bathroom is the person I was sharing a bed with.

robinph

April O Neill wrote: »

Oh I get that. It's just sounds like a crock, that's all. My first assumption would be that the person in the bathroom is the person I was sharing a bed with.

Agreed.

But his defence is going to be based around him being particularly vulnerable and justifiably scared of intruders.

robinph

Now if they can figure out any evidence of her having tried to get away from him during a supposed argument and then having locked herself in the bathroom for safety, or witnesses who overheard an argument at 4am then it changes things. If she was trying to get away from him though I'd have thought just running downstairs and out the front door would be the best escape as he can't follow until he puts his legs on.

Her hiding from him in the bathroom is just as daft as the suggestion that him not realising that the other person in the house was her going to the loo.

seamus

robinph wrote: »

Her hiding from him in the bathroom is just as daft as the suggestion that him not realising that the other person in the house was her going to the loo.

Well it wouldn't be all that crazy to suggest that if they were having an argument, she would lock herself in there until he calmed down. However, given that the bathroom is as he describes it, it would seem odd that if she was trying to hide, she would lock herself in what is effectively a cubicle instead of locking the outside door of the bathroom.

robinph

Do people often get into heated rows at 4am after already having gone to bed hours before? If they'd been arguing for hours maybe, but there would then be more likely to be witness who heard them or saw that the lights were on at a strange hour. But you don't get up part way through the night and start an argument, well unless the duvet was not being shared.

Both scenarios (premeditated murder/ thought it was an intruder) seem equally full of holes to me at the moment.

bootybouncer

I reckon she came in around 3.30ish after getting hammered out of it by the SA rugby texter and Stumpy lost the plot altogether...............................

aidan24326

Whatever way you look at it his story doesn't add up. If there was an intruder why would said intruder be hiding in a tiny toilet cubicle? How would they have gotten in there without him knowing? Would you not shout a warning, ask who's there before you start pumping bullets through the door?

seamus

There were reports that some witnesses claimed to hear screaming and shouting before the gunshots. This would be covered from two angles in Pistorius's account - He did scream before firing, but there also would have been a lot of screaming and shouting while he hammered down the door with the bat (which could have sounded like gunshots).

This thing will most likely hinge on the forensic evidence. The police and the prosecutors seem very sure of themselves.

seenitall

robinph wrote: »

Do people often get into heated rows at 4am after already having gone to bed hours before? If they'd been arguing for hours maybe, but there would then be more likely to be witness who heard them or saw that the lights were on at a strange hour. But you don't get up part way through the night and start an argument, well unless the duvet was not being shared.

Both scenarios (premeditated murder/ thought it was an intruder) seem equally full of holes to me at the moment.

Allegedly she got a text from a rugby star in the middle of the night (perhaps wishing her a happy Valentine's?), so that's what allegedly started the middle-of-the-night argument.

Rascasse

robinph wrote: »

Now if they can figure out any evidence of her having tried to get away from him during a supposed argument and then having locked herself in the bathroom for safety, or witnesses who overheard an argument at 4am then it changes things. If she was trying to get away from him though I'd have thought just running downstairs and out the front door would be the best escape as he can't follow until he puts his legs on.

Her hiding from him in the bathroom is just as daft as the suggestion that him not realising that the other person in the house was her going to the loo.

We'll have to wait to see what the prosecution say tomorrow, but there was talk that they found her ipad on the floor of the bedroom and perhaps there were imessages between her and a Springbok. If he saw them and hit the roof in not implausible for her to run off to the loo.

I'm very suspect about this line;

On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police.

If he was in a rage and and was shouting at her to get out of his house (and the neighbours heard), that is a good way to expain it away. I mean, why shout at an intruder if you are going to shoot at him through a locked door anyway?

Some questions I have, that I hope they answer tomorrow is;
1. Did the neighbours hear a woman shouting?
2. Was the trajectory of the bullets consistent with him being without his legs?
3. Was there anything on the ipad that could have upset him.

Really unsure what to think of the case at the moment.

robinph

aidan24326 wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it his story doesn't add up. If there was an intruder why would said intruder be hiding in a tiny toilet cubicle? How would they have gotten in there without him knowing? Would you not shout a warning, ask who's there before you start pumping bullets through the door?

There had been contractors working on the outside of his house who had left ladders round that side and the bathroom window was open, the toilet itself being through a separate locked door.

wonderfullife

I'm not buying what Oscar is selling here.

Firstly though, the SA criminal justice process is strange to say the least. The police investigation has only just begun (effectively it's in its early stages) yet the bail hearing goes ahead based on limited evidence (from both sides). Odd.

Given that the police investigation may throw up all sorts of information, it's hard to speculate too much but his account makes little sense so far. If the fractured skull situation bares up under investigation he's gonna have a hard time to weasle out of that. If there is copious amounts of her blood on the cricket bat that's also a tough one to explain. Who bashes a door down and puts the bat in a pool of blood?

As things stand the inconsistencies or doubts lay on:

1. How long did it take for him to get the fan? I'm assuming less than 1 minute, on his stumps to go out and get it. If the gun was kept under his bed, as stated, how on earth does he get the gun in the pitch dark under his own bed yet fail to notice his girlfriend is not in the bed???? Even in "pitch dark" you'd hear breathing, snoring, tossing n turning, a silhoutte of a body.

2. If he called out "ring the police" and other things, why on earth did Reeva not go "im in the toilet babe, what's the craic?" (or anything to that effect).

3. Most crucially, why on gods green earth would a burglar break in to an upstairs toilet and lock him/herself in the toilet? It's like WTF! "i'm here to steal the millionaires sh1t but i'll just lock myself in here for a dump first!!"

seamus

wonderfullife wrote: »

Who bashes a door down and puts the bat in a pool of blood?

Are you suggesting that a normal person would bash the door down, and then upon spotting their partner slumped over and bleeding profusely, would turn around and carefully put the bat back from where they got it?

1. How long did it take for him to get the fan? I'm assuming less than 1 minute, on his stumps to go out and get it. If the gun was kept under his bed, as stated, how on earth does he get the gun in the pitch dark under his own bed yet fail to notice his girlfriend is not in the bed???? Even in "pitch dark" you'd hear breathing, snoring, tossing n turning, a silhoutte of a body.

To be fair, when pure terror comes over you, you basically can't hear a bloody thing except your heart pounding in your ears. You completely go on auto-pilot, the guy mightn't even remember what he did to go get the gun, he might just remember it a patchy blur of panic.

2. If he called out "ring the police" and other things, why on earth did Reeva not go "im in the toilet babe, what's the craic?" (or anything to that effect).

This is really the main point of contention. Any house at 4am, and you will hear someone shouting in the bathroom (usually very echoey). It makes no sense that he would scream out and she would not respond.

3. Most crucially, why on gods green earth would a burglar break in to an upstairs toilet and lock him/herself in the toilet? It's like WTF! "i'm here to steal the millionaires sh1t but i'll just lock myself in here for a dump first!!"

In a panic you don't think very rationally. Equally you could ask why he bothered with a warning if he was afraid that the intruder would come out of the bathroom. The intruder was going to have to leave the bathroom no matter what.
But like I say, when you're completely terrified you lose a lot of ability to think in joined-up terms like that.

wonderfullife

Based on the evidence to date, my slightly elaborate guess is the situation went down something like this:

Massive argument. Tempers flare. She legs it to toilet and locks herself in, probably in tears. He starts screaming open the f'ing door. gets his gun says if you dont open this door i'll knock it down, this is my f'ing house. she says leave me alone. he fires 4 shots in, tries to open door still cant. gets the bat, whacks open the door and finds an "ooops" moment with 3 shots hitting her.

Panics, rings his agent before an ambulance (WEIRD!!), sees she's in bits, carries her down the stairs and rest is history.

As far as pre-meditated murder goes, it's an odd one to intentionally murder someone through a door. no matter how small the toilet, 4 shots can't guarantee hitting someone let alone murdering them. I'd lean towards him being enraged and shooting at the door then bashing it down with a cricket bat.

wonderfullife

seamus wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a normal person would bash the door down, and then upon spotting their partner slumped over and bleeding profusely, would turn around and carefully put the bat back from where they got it?

To be fair, when pure terror comes over you, you basically can't hear a bloody thing except your heart pounding in your ears. You completely go on auto-pilot, the guy mightn't even remember what he did to go get the gun, he might just remember it a patchy blur of panic.
This is really the main point of contention. Any house at 4am, and you will hear someone shouting in the bathroom (usually very echoey). It makes no sense that he would scream out and she would not respond.
In a panic you don't think very rationally. Equally you could ask why he bothered with a warning if he was afraid that the intruder would come out of the bathroom. The intruder was going to have to leave the bathroom no matter what.
But like I say, when you're completely terrified you lose a lot of ability to think in joined-up terms like that.

No, im just suggesting if i bash down a bathroom door from the outside i would probably drop the bat when its open (outside the door) versus carrying it in. He knows it's reeva in there by this point. If he did drop it in her blood fair enough, plausible enough anyway.

It's not about rational thinking, what Oscar was thinking at the time is irrelevant to the point the prosecution will make - that a burglar is highly unlikely to lock themselves inside a bathroom upon entering the property.

Tipsy McSwagger

I'd say that most of us would know if there partner wasn't in the bed if you woke up in the middle of the night, and all of us would know if you got out of bed that your partner wasn't in it. I don't buy his story at all.

sham69

Was there not a spent shell found in the bedroom?
I thought I read that somewhere?
Something about first shot in bedroom , she limped to the bathroom , locked herself in with the bat and then the other shots were fired?
Must have been something I read online.
I suppose if that was the case it would be a very quick trial....

Tipsy McSwagger

A better defense for Pistorius would be to say that he was just trying to shoot the lock open after being concerned that his gf was locked in there and not responding to him.

aidan24326

wonderfullife wrote: »

As far as pre-meditated murder goes, it's an odd one to intentionally murder someone through a door. no matter how small the toilet, 4 shots can't guarantee hitting someone let alone murdering them. I'd lean towards him being enraged and shooting at the door then bashing it down with a cricket bat.

You're probably right. It may not have been pre-meditated murder (why wait until she's locked in the toilet?) but whatever way you want to look at it once you start shooting at what you suspect to be a human target then there's intent there. Everyone knows that once you fire 4 bullets at someone there's a high likelihood of causing their death.

For me the only issue here is establishing whether this really was first-degree murder or a lesser charge (second degree/manslaughter or whatever). Actually come to think of it second-degree murder isn't that much of a lesser charge anyway, it also carries a pretty severe jail sentence in most countries.

The Road Runner

What length of time will he be looking at inside if he is convicted?

Rascasse

The Road Runner wrote: »

What length of time will he be looking at inside if he is convicted?

Life (25 years min) for premeditated. Less if lower category. At least 8 or 9 I'd imagine.

wonderfullife

aidan24326 wrote: »

You're probably right. It may not have been pre-meditated murder (why wait until she's locked in the toilet?) but whatever way you want to look at it once you start shooting at what you suspect to be a human target then there's intent there. Everyone knows that once you fire 4 bullets at someone there's a high likelihood of causing their death.

For me the only issue here is establishing whether this really was first-degree murder or a lesser charge (second degree/manslaughter or whatever). Actually come to think of it second-degree murder isn't that much of a lesser charge anyway, it also carries a pretty severe jail sentence in most countries.

There is definitely more to this case than we have heard in court. The prosecution are relying on the police investigation, which is ongoing, but the police must have a lot for the prosecutor to go for pre-meditated murder. I'd be astonished if many prosecutors, even in SA, would risk their reputations and the reputation of their office by bungling a high profile case without decent cause to do so.

A lot of this case hinges on what we don't know yet. If her skull was indeed fractured, how did this happen? That's something that will likely be disputed with the defence trying to argue when he shot through the door, she whacked her head and the prosecution trying to show Oscar inflicted the wound.

I'm also fairly sure the prosecution will have testimony lined up from neighbours, friends of Reeva or others to portray Pistorius as violent and prone to fits of temper. Of course, Oscar will point to her twitter and public statements expressing how happy they were but often times the face people present to the public is not reflective of what goes on in private.

In short, the prosecution must have more than they have shown to go after the pre-meditated murder charge. If they can demonstrate motive and history of violence, it should be easy to debunk and cast doubt on the "intruder" story and sway it towards a violent man shooting at his girlfriend knowingly risking her life.

bob the bob

davet82 wrote: »

he said he was 'mortified' about what he had done, weird choice of words imo

most Irish people use that word to mean embarrassed, which is not very accurate.

phoenix999

If most of us suspected a burglar to be in the house, the 'normal' reaction would be first to check where your loved ones were i.e. wake his girlfriend and tell her he thought there was an intruder. And secondly why was the bathroom door locked? She was with her boyfriend, who was supposed to be in bed. She had no reason to lock the door unless she felt threatened. His story just doesnt add up. If it turns out that she had other physical injuries (besides bullet holes), he will be going down for a very long time.

wonderfullife

phoenix999 wrote: »

If most of us suspected a burglar to be in the house, the 'normal' reaction would be first to check where your loved ones were i.e. wake his girlfriend and tell her he thought there was an intruder. And secondly why was the bathroom door locked? She was with her boyfriend, who was supposed to be in bed. She had no reason to lock the door unless she felt threatened. His story just doesnt add up. If it turns out that she had other physical injuries (besides bullet holes), he will be going down for a very long time.

to be fair, some people lock a bathroom door out of habit. I've often locked it behind me when im in the house alone without thinking. It's just a reflex/force of habit.

Why a burglar would lock themselves in a toilet is a total mystery and basically inexplicable.

I agree, i feel anybody even in a state of "panic" would go to their loved ones first and foremost, but i suppose by definition people don't always think clearly during panic. It doesn't add up though that he can get a gun from under his bed and not reach across the bed to say "reeva i think there is a burglar ring the cops".

Allyall

davet82 wrote: »

he said he was 'mortified' about what he had done, weird choice of words imo

I thought the exact same thing..

bob the bob wrote: »

most Irish people use that word to mean embarrassed, which is not very accurate.

It may not be, but it still is a weird choice of words

mor·ti·fy v. mor·ti·fied, mor·ti·fy·ing, mor·ti·fies
v.tr.1. To cause to experience shame, humiliation, or wounded pride; humiliate.
2. To discipline (one's body and physical appetites) by self-denial or self-inflicted privation.

v.intr.1. To practice ascetic discipline or self-denial of the body and its appetites.
2. Pathology To undergo mortification; become gangrenous or necrosed.

I mean, he is obviously experiencing shame for what he did, but there are plenty of other words I would've chose over it. Distraught being one.
He is obviously distraught by the whole thing, but apparently (As i'm sure has been mentioned numerous times) had a serious temper.

So i'm guessing (Haven't read the entire thread), most people are assuming he was in a blind rage, she hid in the toilet and he, while still in blind rage, shot the door 4 times..?

Out of curiosity, is anyone here thinking it is possible that he may have been out getting air, heard the noise, and frightened, grabbed a gun and shot the door 4 times while shouting at her to ring the Police?

The Road Runner

I saw a drawing of the apartment. As far as i know the toilet was downstairs so he would of had to go back upstairs to get his gun from beside his bed and then back down again.

Chucky the tree

I’m acutely aware of people gaining entries to homes to commit crime, I’ve received death threats. I sleep with my 9mm under my bed. I woke up to close the sliding door and heard a noise in the bathroom.

[x] aware of crimes against people and their homes
[x] received death threats
[x] leaves sliding door open at night when going to sleep.


More holes in his story than his bathroom door.

Allyall

Chucky the tree wrote: »

[x] aware of crimes against people and their homes
[x] received death threats
[x] leaves sliding door open at night when going to sleep.


More holes in his story than his bathroom door.

I thought he said he was out on the Balcony getting air?

wonderfullife

Allyall wrote: »

I thought the exact same thing..



It may not be, but it still is a weird choice of words


He is obviously distraught by the whole thing, but apparently (As i'm sure has been mentioned numerous times) had a serious temper.

So i'm guessing (Haven't read the entire thread), most people are assuming he was in a blind rage, she hid in the toilet and he, while still in blind rage, shot the door 4 times..?

Out of curiosity, is anyone here thinking it is possible that he may have been out getting air, heard the noise, and frightened, grabbed a gun and shot the door 4 times while shouting at her to ring the Police?

It is possible, yes, plausible, no.

He gets the gun from under his bed, doesn't notice his girlfriend in it (or not in it), doesn't check if she is in it, if he's at the bed in fear of a burglar surely put his arms around here and whisper phone the cops or tell her to stay put or hide under the bed. Anything really.

Even allowing for a state of blind panic, it's inconceivable he shouted (as he claims) for her to call the police and shouted through the door at the "intruder" and not once did she respond and say "i'm in here!!".

If he shouted, as he said, it's inexplicable for her to stay quiet and say nothing.

There are multiple holes in his version of events, some of which can be attributed to a state of panic (if we choose to believe him), others just don't make sense. That's given the available evidence. If there is more (i.e. the fractured skull) his story will soon be ripped to pieces.

Micky Dolenz

All his legal team have to do is plant reasonable doubt and the premeditated charge won't fly in court.

It may have been worth going for a lesser charge, if SA have grades of murder charges.

Allyall

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

All his legal team have to do is plant reasonable doubt and the premeditated charge won't fly in court.

It may have been worth going for a lesser charge, if SA have grades of murder charges.

They charged him with section 6 or something? (The most serious)

I'd say they knew the Pre-Meditated wouldn't work, but went for it to get the one lower. Like when a builder wants 30 Apartments, he asks for 50, knowing they'll refuse some. - Terrible analogy but might point is somewhere in there.

They didn't want to go for the lesser charge as he was probably always going to try and get a lighter charge.

wonderfullife

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

All his legal team have to do is plant reasonable doubt and the premeditated charge won't fly in court.

It may have been worth going for a lesser charge, if SA have grades of murder charges.

2 schools of thought here:

1. the prosecution have plenty up their sleeve and know they can rip his story to pieces. Fractured skull? Bullet cases in bedroom? Reports of screaming from neighbours? Reeva telling friends they were fighting etc.

2. conspiracy theory - Pistorius has connections in places of power who want to see him cleared so the prosecutor goes for the premeditated murder charge in the knowledge Pistorius can cast enough doubt on it to get off.

the latter is far fetched, so i'm going to assume there is plenty of forensic evidence and a history of violence to get it to stick.

Gosub

Yup, forensics should wrap it up. If there's hair on the cricket bat... game over.

namloc1980

Gosub wrote: »

Yup, forensics should wrap it up. If there's hair on the cricket bat... game over.

They'll say he accidentally struck her as he was trying to break down the door to rescue her.

Da Shins Kelly

That story is a steaming pile of horse sh*t.

phoenix999

One also has to ask, if South Africa is as dangerous as Pistorius and other commentators make out, then why the hell live there? With an annual murder rate of over 18,000 a year (Spain with similar population has just 550), I sure wont be going there in a rush. Who wants to live with a gun under their pillow?

ollie1

Was it confirmed that there was blood on the cricket bat?

Rascasse

phoenix999 wrote: »

One also has to ask, if South Africa is as dangerous as Pistorius and other commentators make out, then why the hell live there? With an annual murder rate of over 18,000 a year (Spain with similar population has just 550), I sure wont be going there in a rush. Who wants to live with a gun under their pillow?

Many of the murders are in the townships, and most people don't have guns. I think the murder rate is something like only 50% worse than Chicago, yet no one would question going there.

I read he actually trains in Italy and spends much of the summer competing so probably is only there for the European winter.

fullstop

bootybouncer wrote: »

who locks the bathroom door during the middle of the night from the inside and doesnt respond to their name........................................horse**** stumpy, the man is a murderer

bootybouncer wrote: »

I reckon she came in around 3.30ish after getting hammered out of it by the SA rugby texter and Stumpy lost the plot altogether...............................

Give over with the "stumpy" bull**** ffs.

phoenix999

ollie1 wrote: »

Was it confirmed that there was blood on the cricket bat?

Only by the press. No doubt the defense will say it got covered in blood after he shot her. Cross contamination or whatever. Since the prosecutor is determined to pursue premeditiated murder, she might have had head injuries. That would be very damning evidence.

wonderfullife

phoenix999 wrote: »

One also has to ask, if South Africa is as dangerous as Pistorius and other commentators make out, then why the hell live there? With an annual murder rate of over 18,000 a year (Spain with similar population has just 550), I sure wont be going there in a rush. Who wants to live with a gun under their pillow?

That's a moot point really, you can make the same argument for a lot of countries such as America, or a lot of other countries for different reasons. People might not want to live here in Ireland for countless reasons - weather, taxes, transport, whatever.

Point is if you are from Ireland or SA, then it's your home and that's usually a good enough reason for people wanting to live there.

Fact is he shot his girlfriend dead in the middle of the night and his account of the story has more holes in it than a cheese grater.

LizT

namloc1980 wrote: »

They'll say he accidentally struck her as he was trying to break down the door to rescue her.

His statement says he found her slupmed over the toilet though, didn't it? He'd be contradicting himself then.

namloc1980

LizT wrote: »

His statement says he found her slupmed over the toilet though, didn't it? He'd be contradicting himself then.

I know but it's the only explanation I can see them using.

LizT

ollie1 wrote: »

Was it confirmed that there was blood on the cricket bat?

It doesn't really make a difference as if his version of events is true, it's entirely possible that there was blood on the floor and he dropped the bat in it.

I presume it would be fairly obvious if the bat had been used on her.

namloc1980

I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.

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.

Seriously? Oscar's main defense is going to be his fear of being a victim of violent crime and that he reacted in a panic/terror to the thought of someone in his house. For someone with such a fear he had no problem going out onto his balcony in the middle of the night without prosthetics on and no alarm on!

MadsL

No panic button on his alarm system? First thing you hit after locking and loading.

P_1

Wow I have to say that the wheels of justice seem to move a hell of a lot quicker in South Africa than they do here.

Any South Africans reading, is that the norm, do things tend to work so quickly?

MadsL

P_1 wrote: »

Wow I have to say that the wheels of justice seem to move a hell of a lot quicker in South Africa than they do here.

Any South Africans reading, is that the norm, do things tend to work so quickly?

It's a bail hearing, he's high profile. Nothing moving fast here.