Oscar Pistorius

[JimmyFingers]

In what sense does it hold water? Do you mean that it might not be pre-mediated? i.e heat of the moment/passion crime?
If that is the case i agree with this possibility, but find the notion that there was no communication between them between the from the time them having been in bed together and of him shooting her far fetched. As i said earlier if for some reason the first thought you had was that there was an intruder in your bedroom bathroom and you'd just been in bed with your Mrs the first thing you'd do is check on her? no?
Equally if he'd had children and heard a noise would he have just gone in shooting?
If this is to be taken seriously why hasn't he killed a lot more people by now? or at least come close to it?

Oh believe me I agree his story is barely credible, but innocent until proven guilty, unlike here most of the time. There are lots of variables and different evidence that will come to light, we only hearing the prosecution and defense outline their cases, character references and the like, rather than any really meat.

While barely credible, motive still needs to be established. Stories are trickling into the media about him driving to fast, about his rant over the length of the other runners blades, angry phonecalls, but little of it add up to the sort of psychotic break necessary to commit such a violent act. We need to hear more about their relationship, about the context of the mysterious text, about her relationship with the rugby player is anything. He clearly committed the act, its whether it was a crime of passion, a mistake or motivated by something else.

 

[thirteen]

just got up so i've yet to read the news (just read comments here)...

but, in defence of locked bathrooms in the middle of the night... i did use to do this when i was just "visiting" my boyfriend. i still do it, too, when i am at his family's house. if you are in a place that you don't live and/or live with a roommate), this is just reflexive... there is nothing quite as scary (read: startling) as sitting for a pee, half asleep, and the door opening.

i am in no way saying that this is the case here, merely throwing it out as men do not seem to lock the door (and most of the Clinic's denizen are male) whereas a lot of women do.

*************

i also went out for a while with a man who had one leg amputated below the knee. as it was only one leg, so he could easily hop his way around, etc. however, if he felt threatened or whatnot, he could put on that leg amazingly fast. it was an automatic response so as not to feel vulnerable.

*************

again, i am not defending him, just responding to what i've read here... i see neither action as proof of a threat or pre-meditation when taken on their own... in context, though, well i'm off to read the reports.

 

[Tom375]

More details in the following article of what was actually said at court.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/19/safrica-pistorius-idUKL6N0BJ1OK20130219

PRETORIA, Feb 19 (Reuters) - "Blade Runner" Oscar Pistorius put on his artificial legs and walked across his bedroom before firing four shots through a locked toilet door, killing his cowering girlfriend in cold blood, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

Reeva Steenkamp, a 30-year-old law graduate and model, died after being hit by three rounds from a 9-mm pistol, prosecutor Gerrie Nel said.

Pistorius, 26, wept uncontrollably in court as Nel outlined details of a shooting that has stunned South Africa and the millions around the world who saw the double amputee's track glory as an inspiring tale of triumph over adversity.

Later, in a dramatic affidavit read out by defence lawyer Barry Roux, Pistorius said he had been "deeply in love" with Steenkamp, whom he had been dating since November, and had no intention of killing her.

Having had previous death threats and break-ins, Pistorius said he slept with a 9-mm pistol under his bed in his plush Pretoria home in the heart of a well-secured gated community.

He and Steenkamp went to sleep on Wednesday night - the eve of Valentine's Day - some time after 10 p.m., he said.

However, in the middle of the night, he awoke in pitch darkness and thought an intruder had climbed through a window and entered the toilet, Pistorius said.

Without putting on his prosthetic legs - contrary to the prosecution's version of events - he moved on his stumps into the bathroom adjoining his bedroom and noticed the closed toilet door. He did not realise Steenkamp was behind it, he said.

He shouted for the intruder to get out of his house then fired several shots into the door, before calling to Steenkamp to phone the police.

When she did not respond, he grabbed a cricket bat to beat down the door and found her slumped on the floor, he said.

So she was in a toilet in the bathroom explains that she was an easy target...
Rest of story sounds very fishy.. don't believe a word of it.

 

[Tom375]

Oh believe me I agree his story is barely credible, but innocent until proven guilty, unlike here most of the time. There are lots of variables and different evidence that will come to light, we only hearing the prosecution and defense outline their cases, character references and the like, rather than any really meat.

While barely credible, motive still needs to be established. Stories are trickling into the media about him driving to fast, about his rant over the length of the other runners blades, angry phonecalls, but little of it add up to the sort of psychotic break necessary to commit such a violent act. We need to hear more about their relationship, about the context of the mysterious text, about her relationship with the rugby player is anything. He clearly committed the act, its whether it was a crime of passion, a mistake or motivated by something else.

Agreed to bold bit - but the outline of defence looks very sketch to me.. (i haven't had to use my dog ate my homework for a while) hence why i've commented on it.
Motive will be key and i fail to see anything the media have speculated about so far as insightful. i.e He was a very nice man but could be moody sometimes this could be apply to just about anyone..
Actual fact for motive will be interesting but don't think they'll be available until full trial, i would guess that this will be the main are of the prosecutors and police leading up to trial as they seem assured of the actions that took place.

 

[Tom375]

but, in defence of locked bathrooms in the middle of the night... i did use to do this when i was just "visiting" my boyfriend. i still do it, too, when i am at his family's house. if you are in a place that you don't live and/or live with a roommate), this is just reflexive... there is nothing quite as scary (read: startling) as sitting for a pee, half asleep, and the door opening.

No don't see any issue in locking the toilet when you go for a pee etc. (could have been the other even more reason to lock the door..) irrelevance really...
But find it difficult to believe if you were in possession of a gun your first reaction knowing that your girlfriend had been in the room is to shoot it off through the locked door without checking her whereabouts first.
I know us men can be forgetful but.. really?

 

[Briant_Gumble]

The way the prosecution gave their take on what happened does make it plausible that it could have been an accident although very unlikely in my mind.

The speculation in the papers turned out to be a bit of a red herring, the bloodied cricket bat, also the witness who spoke to The Sun claiming that she heard a delay of 10 minutes between shots, not sure if she will come into play later but that would really screw his defence.

 

[alitogata]

It's not about you offering a different point of view. It's about your points being so laughable that considering them as trolling instead of serious statements is the most positive thing to be said about them.

If you find them laughable then laugh..( I like to make people happy), as for the trolling thing I wrote above what you can do.

My points are the points of someone who doesn't want to play the role of the judge or make speculations about what happened. And I find all these scenarios, ( how this murdered was done, he went there.. he did that.. etc) of a very bad taste. I support that anyone is innocent till the opposite is proven, including the motives, beyond any doubt and I'm not intended to speculate about Pistorius actions or motives, because this is courts' job and not mine.
So I prefer to discuss about such matters in a more moderate and general way.

 

[thirteen]

No don't see any issue in locking the toilet when you go for a pee etc. (could have been the other even more reason to lock the door..) irrelevance really...
But find it difficult to believe if you were in possession of a gun your first reaction knowing that your girlfriend had been in the room is to shoot it off through the locked door without checking her whereabouts first.
I know us men can be forgetful but.. really?

forgetting your girlfriend was there? if you're not that used to it and it's the wee hours of the night... but, yeah, it's a stretch... especially as he was supposedly telling her to call the police...

it's truly difficult for me to comment because i've heard from a lot of friends that the whole gun for protection thing is quite common in South Africa... but in a gated community? why??? isn't that the whole idea of living in a gated community?

 

[Tom375]

forgetting your girlfriend was there? if you're not that used to it and it's the wee hours of the night... but, yeah, it's a stretch... especially as he was supposedly telling her to call the police...

it's truly difficult for me to comment because i've heard from a lot of friends that the whole gun for protection thing is quite common in South Africa... but in a gated community? why??? isn't that the whole idea of living in a gated community?

Maybe it was the wee hours, but he said he'd only gone out to get a fanfrom the balcony. The fact that he was awake already indicates he was compus mentus it wasn't like he'd woken up suddenly.. I don't see how he could fire into a toilet in his bathroom without ruling out the most logical possibility i.e. it was his girlfriend, unless he intended to kill her.

I think whether he and other possess a gun for protection is probably not the point in this - it doesn't make any sense to me that he would have fired the gun into the toilet blind and not checked whether she was in bed first. If she was in bed he could have got her out of the room ang got her to call the police whilst he guarded the toilet with his gun.. No?

Anyway for someone that wasn't going to comment - I've spouted a lot on this today so will call it quits. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty - just from what i've seen today this looks a lot more than a freak accident. There are a lot of things that if he's (Pisorius) to believed that he did which caused her death that don't make any sense oto me IMO etcetc.

 

[thirteen]

would really appreciate it if any lawyers here could explain the pre-meditation aspect of the charges. that, i don't get. i also don't know if that law is defined differently in South Africa.

my boyfriend threw out an interesting thought in that regard -- did the prosecutors perhaps over-charge...?

 

[Cobblestones]

would really appreciate it if any lawyers here could explain the pre-meditation aspect of the charges. that, i don't get. i also don't know if that law is defined differently in South Africa.

my boyfriend threw out an interesting thought in that regard -- did the prosecutors perhaps over-charge...?

Just don't make plans for the day, otherwise the word premeditated gets thrown around in the courtroom a lot.

 

[Elagabalus]

In bed, prosthetic off, argument starts over txt. She gets up, he reaches under pillow for pistol, she backs away, he shoots at her hitting her in the hip. She staggers to bathroom frantically closed and locks door. He puts on prosthetics taking a few minutes which witnesses note.

This is the crucial bit. He appriaches door, bangs on it it and jiggles the handle. She is frantic, and leans against door holding handle. Telling him to keep out. Thus when he shoots through the door he knows she is standing right in front of him, and hits her 3 out of 4 shots, a couole in outstretched arm and hand holding door shut.

It might start out as jealous rage but finishes as an execution in cold blood.

Except in your account he fires 5 shots-one in her hip and four into the door. They have his gun and know how many bullets the clip contains and can then deduce how many shots were fired. Did they find three holes in the door or four?

 

[Tom375]

would really appreciate it if any lawyers here could explain the pre-meditation aspect of the charges. that, i don't get. i also don't know if that law is defined differently in South Africa.

my boyfriend threw out an interesting thought in that regard -- did the prosecutors perhaps over-charge...?

Not a lawyer and not from SA so only know what i've read reported on it.

Pre-meditated aspect derives i guess the same as law in many other countries from being done not in the heat of the moment, i.e you've had time to consider your actions before committing them - i guess how much time equals pre-meditated is open to interpretation.
The penalty for this in South Africa is minimum of life (i think it means life as well).

With regards to the lawyers overcharging i'm not sure how the South African court system works but I'd of thought you shouldn't be able to overcharge - if the judge or jury deems the charge unproved it should be able to find guilty for lesser charge if it deems fit - in this case murder, manslaughter etc.

Anyway not a lawyer so would be interested to hear a bit more on how that works..

 

[Elagabalus]

would really appreciate it if any lawyers here could explain the pre-meditation aspect of the charges. that, i don't get. i also don't know if that law is defined differently in South Africa.

my boyfriend threw out an interesting thought in that regard -- did the prosecutors perhaps over-charge...?

Prosecutors, and lawyers in general, always over-charge! (doh ... rimshot!!!)


But seriously, prosecutors usually begin with "to fullest extent of the law" so they have more haggling options later.

 

[FitSsikS]

I wonder if Oscar's blood test will indicate cocaine use as well as steroids?

Sadly these 2 sometimes go together....err....while really NOT going together.

Nothing like being paranoid and aggressive.

 

[thirteen]

so i've read a little further on it and, whilst still hoping some lawyers to chime in, it seems the premeditation aspect is important in terms of bail and who the onus is on to provide proof (Schedule 5 -- prosecution; Schedule 6 -- defence).

 

[Merckx index]

Very interesting speculations, thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread. Some comments:

1) on OP's claim that he did not put on the blades when he went to the bathroom door - if so, the bullet holes in the door would be lower than they would if he were standing on the blades. Shouldn't they be able tell if that's the case? Also, if he was not wearing the blades then, presumably he wasn't when he broke the door down. But to carry her body anywhere, he would have to put on the blades, right? I'm assuming he can't walk very well without them, but I really don't know what the situation is. But assuming he had to have them on to carry her body downstairs or wherever he went with it, he would have had to go back to the bedroom, leaving a blood trail and other evidence. Forensics ought to be able to evaluate this.

2) I'm unclear on the balcony story. If he got up out of bed to go to the balcony, is he claiming she was still in bed with him at that time? If she wasn't, he would assume she was somewhere else in the house, and any noise would be expected to be her. Even if she was in bed at that time, she clearly wasn't when he returned from the balcony. Is the balcony adjacent to the bedroom? I'm understanding that to return from the balcony meant going into the bedroom, and therefore knowing she wasn't in bed. But maybe his story is that he didn't go from the balcony to the bedroom, so he would have no way of knowing whether or not she was in bed? Still very flimsy, obviously, but just trying to understand his story.

3) I always thought of premeditation as involving days, weeks or months. Apparently it can be a much shorter time. Still, I don't regard ten minutes as sufficient to establish it. If you have a heated argument with someone, you don't calm down immediately, even if you take yourself out of the situation. And if the other person remains in your presence, physically or verbally, you may not calm down for a very long time.

I can see that whether or not he had the blades on could be crucial. If he was in the throes of passion, he would probably not have taken the time to put them on, assuming he can move somewhat without them, and assuming he knew she had locked herself in the bathroom. Given those two factors, I can see how taking the time to put the blades on could be construed as someone acting in a more deliberate frame of mind. Still, it hardly seems slam dunk premeditation in that situation.

 

[Parker]

Very interesting speculations, thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread. Some comments:

1) on OP's claim that he did not put on the blades when he went to the bathroom door - if so, the bullet holes in the door would be lower than they would if he were standing on the blades. Shouldn't they be able tell if that's the case? Also, if he was not wearing the blades then, presumably he wasn't when he broke the door down. But to carry her body anywhere, he would have to put on the blades, right? I'm assuming he can't walk very well without them, but I really don't know what the situation is. But assuming he had to have them on to carry her body downstairs or wherever he went with it, he would have had to go back to the bedroom, leaving a blood trail and other evidence. Forensics ought to be able to evaluate this.

Er, you do realise that he only wears the blades for running, don't you? He wears regular prosthetics the rest of the time.

 

[Merckx index]

Er, you do realise that he only wears the blades for running, don't you? He wears regular prosthetics the rest of the time.

I was being lazy and using "blades" instead of "prosthetics". The point is that it apparently takes some time to put on prosthetics, and his story is that he didn't put them on when going to the bathroom door, even though he also says he felt vulnerable without the prosthetics.

Apparently he does not move well at all without the prosthetics, because according to another story, if bail is denied and he goes to Pretoria Central prison, he will probably not be allowed to have the prosthetics, because they could be used as a weapon. That story claims he would probably have to use a wheelchair. I don't know where the "stumps" come in, I take it they are something that just sort of cap the end of his legs, and which can be put on and off rather like shoes? Either they wouldn't be allowed in prison, either, or he can't move around in them well enough to wear them there.

All of this raises another question in my mind. If he is so vulnerable without the prosthetics, and if he is so worried about intruders that he sleeps with guns by his side, why wouldn't he sleep wearing the prosthetics? It seems if a real intruder ever did appear, he would be forced to choose between taking valuable time to put the prosthetics on, or confronting the intruder at a serious disadvantage.

 

[sittingbison]

Elagabalus The court reports four shots fired through door, three of which hit her in hand arm and face. The other reports were she was shot 4 times, also had a shot in the hip (from memory).

A couple of thoughts:
1) Not all the evidence is going to be presented, this is a bail hearing not the actual trial. It only has to be enough to legitimize the prosecution and keep him behind bars. I think he will get bail, he is a national icon, rich, famous, and a double amputee.
2) Oscars PR and lawyers have effectively ruled out a crime of passion defense.

 

[Cloxxki]

Er, you do realise that he only wears the blades for running, don't you? He wears regular prosthetics the rest of the time.

I understand running on blades, and that it this fast. But carrying a lifeless body down stairs on any prosthetics...I'd have to see it to believe it.
That said...
Considering he's a world class sprint athlete pushing weights about daily, I bet he has a mean run on his arms alone. Wheelbarreling himself (less weight), or using arms as legs, stomps forward. Never underestimate the abilities of someone with disabilities.

 

[Dweller]

One thing I find odd is why did his girlfriend lock the toilet door when using it during the middle of the night? Was she an intensely private person or was it habit, or was she trying to get away from someone who was in a fit of rage?

 

[sittingbison]

One thing I find odd is why did his girlfriend lock the toilet door when using it during the middle of the night? Was she an intensely private person or was it habit, or was she trying to get away from someone who was in a fit of rage?

thirteen explains this in detail a couple of posts above.

its your first post Dweller, it can be useful to read the whole thread first?

 

[thirteen]

One thing I find odd is why did his girlfriend lock the toilet door when using it during the middle of the night? Was she an intensely private person or was it habit, or was she trying to get away from someone who was in a fit of rage?

i already addressed that point earlier in the thread:

but, in defence of locked bathrooms in the middle of the night... i did use to do this when i was just "visiting" my boyfriend. i still do it, too, when i am at his family's house. if you are in a place that you don't live and/or live with a roommate), this is just reflexive... there is nothing quite as scary (read: startling) as sitting for a pee, half asleep, and the door opening.

i am in no way saying that this is the case here, merely throwing it out as men do not seem to lock the door (and most of the Clinic's denizen are male) whereas a lot of women do.

 

[thirteen]

Very interesting speculations, thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread. Some comments:

1) on OP's claim that he did not put on the blades when he went to the bathroom door - if so, the bullet holes in the door would be lower than they would if he were standing on the blades. Shouldn't they be able tell if that's the case? Also, if he was not wearing the blades then, presumably he wasn't when he broke the door down. But to carry her body anywhere, he would have to put on the blades, right? I'm assuming he can't walk very well without them, but I really don't know what the situation is. But assuming he had to have them on to carry her body downstairs or wherever he went with it, he would have had to go back to the bedroom, leaving a blood trail and other evidence. Forensics ought to be able to evaluate this.

2) I'm unclear on the balcony story. If he got up out of bed to go to the balcony, is he claiming she was still in bed with him at that time? If she wasn't, he would assume she was somewhere else in the house, and any noise would be expected to be her. Even if she was in bed at that time, she clearly wasn't when he returned from the balcony. Is the balcony adjacent to the bedroom? I'm understanding that to return from the balcony meant going into the bedroom, and therefore knowing she wasn't in bed. But maybe his story is that he didn't go from the balcony to the bedroom, so he would have no way of knowing whether or not she was in bed? Still very flimsy, obviously, but just trying to understand his story.

3) I always thought of premeditation as involving days, weeks or months. Apparently it can be a much shorter time. Still, I don't regard ten minutes as sufficient to establish it. If you have a heated argument with someone, you don't calm down immediately, even if you take yourself out of the situation. And if the other person remains in your presence, physically or verbally, you may not calm down for a very long time.

I can see that whether or not he had the blades on could be crucial. If he was in the throes of passion, he would probably not have taken the time to put them on, assuming he can move somewhat without them, and assuming he knew she had locked herself in the bathroom. Given those two factors, I can see how taking the time to put the blades on could be construed as someone acting in a more deliberate frame of mind. Still, it hardly seems slam dunk premeditation in that situation.

his full statement is here: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/19/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-affadavit/index.html

it states he does have some mobility with his stumps... and that he didn't put on his prosthetics until he realised what he might have done. it also clarifies your second point.

and, most definitely, the forensics should be able to establish whether or not he had them on before the shooting.

and, as i said before, i'm waiting on the lawyers here to clarify premeditation laws.