Oscar Pistorius

[Mad Elephant Man]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21502541

Looks like Pistorius defence team are mounting a defense that would make Tim Herman proud.

Claiming that he was randomly shooting at the bathroom door.

Also using the phrase "not even murder" that on the page looks like it was said in the tone of "not even shoplifting".

He did not know who was in the bathroom.

They were alone in the house
They got into a massive argument possibly over a text message from some rugby player
Somehow a cricket bat got involved and she was hit hard on the head.
She still manages to escape his grasp and tries to flee
He grabs his gun and shoots her in the hip limiting her chances of running away probably to zero.
He then puts on his legs and grabs his gun and walks to the bathroom
He realizes someone is inside and the door is locked.
He puts 4 bullets through the door hitting her three times which seems remarkably accurate when you cannot see what you are shooting at.

And he expects us to believe he did not know who was shooting through to the door at.

Okay the details might be slightly off but that is what I have read being reported in bits and pieces in throughout various articles as what the police had found out.

 

[JimmyFingers]

They're charging him with pre-meditated murder, so they believe he planned it, which goes further than saying it was a spur of the moment crime opf passion. I think that has everything to do with the fact he fired through the bathroom door, and that the bathroom was locked, which meant someone had gone to the door, locked themselves in, he walked up to the door and deliberately fired through the door, knowing who was inside and with the intention of injuring/killing them.

 

[Hawkwood]

They're charging him with pre-meditated murder, so they believe he planned it, which goes further than saying it was a spur of the moment crime opf passion. I think that has everything to do with the fact he fired through the bathroom door, and that the bathroom was locked, which meant someone had gone to the door, locked themselves in, he walked up to the door and deliberately fired through the door, knowing who was inside and with the intention of injuring/killing them.

Okay so this is not under English law, but if it was shooting a burglar who had holed up in a locked toilet, goes way beyond using reasonable force to protect yourself.

 

[JimmyFingers]

well the narrative from him is he gets up to close the balcony door, unbeknownst to him she goes to the bathroom, locks door, he hears noises and presumes she is in bed, is terrified by a potential burglar, gets his gun screaming at the intruder to get out and her to call the police, fires blindly through the door and hits her 3 times. He the smashes down the locked door, sees she is alive, attempts resuscitation before carrying her downstairs and outside.

The pre-meditated part is the crux of the issue in many ways. The prosecution are arguing even if he didn't know it was her, getting a gun and shooting through the door at a burglar is pre-meditated, which I struggle with, since you are firing blindly at someone or something unseen. The prosecution are hinting at the locked door being a key element: a girl with her boyfriend gets up at 3am to relieve herself or for a drink, why would you lock the door if there are only two of you there?

Interesting, wonder if we'll get the real truth.

 

[martinvickers]

Okay so this is not under English law, but if it was shooting a burglar who had holed up in a locked toilet, goes way beyond using reasonable force to protect yourself.

Depends if you think the burgler is armed. If you think he is, and have reason to, you aren't expected to necessarily wait and find out.

Read up on the Tony Martin case - what got him was that the men in question were running away - i.e. threat was over; if not, he'd have got clean away with it, nevermind it seemed an overreaction - people aren't expected to make exquisite calculations if risk.

Personally i don't find either the prosecution or the defence convincing at the moment. we'll wait and see. The 'premeditation' case seems very weak, and in places self-contradictory - who puts on their legs in a fit of temper? who deliberately shoots from behind a locked door if in a rage?

On the other hand, shooting burglers in your toilet seems fanciful.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

They're charging him with pre-meditated murder, so they believe he planned it, which goes further than saying it was a spur of the moment crime opf passion. I think that has everything to do with the fact he fired through the bathroom door, and that the bathroom was locked, which meant someone had gone to the door, locked themselves in, he walked up to the door and deliberately fired through the door, knowing who was inside and with the intention of injuring/killing them.

Not only that but the fact he hit her a number of times which means he had to determine where she was in the room and aim carefully even though he could not see her. If he had sprayed bullets all around the room and hit her once he might be able to argue it was moment of anger but not when he shot her so successfully.
There is also the matter of whether the police can prove he had to stop and put on his prosthetic legs before he pursued her. That makes it seem even more like the initial argument and the shooting where two different events.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

Depends if you think the burgler is armed. If you think he is, and have reason to, you aren't expected to necessarily wait and find out.

Read up on the Tony Martin case - what got him was that the men in question were running away - i.e. threat was over; if not, he'd have got clean away with it, nevermind it seemed an overreaction - people aren't expected to make exquisite calculations if risk.

Personally i don't find either the prosecution or the defence convincing at the moment. we'll wait and see. The 'premeditation' case seems very weak, and in places self-contradictory - who puts on their legs in a fit of temper? who deliberately shoots from behind a locked door if in a rage?

On the other hand, shooting burglers in your toilet seems fanciful.

Is not the part which I have bolded the point though. He had to stop and in stopping he planned to go and kill her. The then carried out what he had planned, her death. It was thought about before the act. Reports are that there was a 10 minute gap between shots. I have my doubts about witnesses ability to tell how long 10 minutes was but it seems there was some gap.
If the stories are true, he shot her once in the bedroom in the hip. Perhaps if that shot had killed her you could defend him by saying it was an argument which turned into a fight and he did not really think about killing her, just shot at her as part of the fight and unfortunately she died. Still extremely wrong thing to do but not a premeditated act.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

From the live commentary of the hearing I've heard no mention of the cricket bat. The theory for what transpired that the prosecution put down doesn't seem to involve the cricket bat.

Are they still waiting for the result of the forensic test? Ditto the steroid test?

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Is not the part which I have bolded the point though. He had to stop and in stopping he planned to go and kill her. The then carried out what he had planned, her death. It was thought about before the act. Reports are that there was a 10 minute gap between shots. I have my doubts about witnesses ability to tell how long 10 minutes was but it seems there was some gap.
If the stories are true, he shot her once in the bedroom in the hip. Perhaps if that shot had killed her you could defend him by saying it was an argument which turned into a fight and he did not really think about killing her, just shot at her as part of the fight and unfortunately she died. Still extremely wrong thing to do but not a premeditated act.

Trying to make sense of it but a horrific explanation for the gap is he was trying to ascertain her position in the bathroom which is part of the reason all his shots connected.

It would be extremely, gruesomely savage of him talking to her outside the bathroom door whilst trying to work out where she was standing.

 

[Tom375]

Wasn't going to comment on this story as usually like to await a few more facts before condemning someone.. but this seems pretty much open and shut case the only thing to be determined is whether it is pre-meditated or not. If it's pre-meditated it certainly lacks the finesse of those i used to watch on Colombo. However if there's a signicant gap in his shots at her (purporttedly there is) then that would be pre-meditated, No?

They're in bed together
He allegedly (his words) goes to the balcony
If he did go to the balcony (without his legs??) he returns to the room and hears a noise..
Surely if you return to the room (no alarms etc) you assume that it's the person you were just in bed with? If for some reason this isn't your inital reaction you would normally say (in this case Reeva), Is that you? - end of problem.
To believe that he came back into the room heard a noise from the bathroom (I assume its en-suite) and never once checked whether it was her (or if he did think it was an intruder that he did not think maybe i should get her out of the bed/room whilst i sort this) and that at no stage during this period she was not heard to say anything or cry or sob like she might indicating that it was a woman let alone his girlfriend is a far stretch i'm afraid.
Think the bat might be a red herring it was said it was used to break the door down - which makes sense, there'd of been a lot of blood in the bathroom at this stage so easy for it end up in the state alleged. Only question on that is the fractured skull., Is it possible for a bullet to do that or maybe something fell on her when he broke the door down. If he'd beaten her with a cricket bat first , I don't see he would have needed to be shooting at her through a locked bathroom door she'd have been unconscious before that... Could be wrong..

Other remarks:
Why didn't he turn the light on?
House was alarmed to the tits - no alarms were going off.
He would have known the layout of his own bathroom very well all he'd need to do to have a fair degree of accuracy is locate where she was. assuming that she was frightened this should have been fairly easy, if shot even easier. shots hit different parts of the body indicating that this was the case and also giving some weight to pre-mediated murder.

 

[tension]

Has it been reported what the specific "steroid" they found was exactly?

The media, and often LE, doesn't know what an anabolic steroid is a lot of times. They think hGH is "steroids". Or like when McEnroe admitted to taking steroids which made him bat-**** crazy ... they were corticosteroids. Everyone assumed it was anabolics, because only that evil testosterone (and derivatives) makes you crazy and murderous.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Think the bat might be a red herring it was said it was used to break the door down - which makes sense, there'd of been a lot of blood in the bathroom at this stage so easy for it end up in the state alleged. Only question on that is the fractured skull., Is it possible for a bullet to do that or maybe something fell on her when he broke the door down. If he'd beaten her with a cricket bat first , I don't see he would have needed to be shooting at her through a locked bathroom door she'd have been unconscious before that... Could be wrong..

I would have thought in this day and age whoever carried out the autopsy would be able to discern between damage caused by a bullet and a bat.

How long is the hearing going on for? Is it prosecution state their claims, defense states theirs and then another round? Looking at the reports it seems like the defense has just stated their case but they haven't offered an explanation to the role of the cricket bat.

 

[alitogata]

Lol at alitogata's "Aren't we all victims of society? When you get to the bottom of it, is murder any worse than littering?" speech.

If that is what you've got from all that I've said above, it is rather futility for me to reply or try to discuss with you. I mean that everyone makes his/her mind according to what he/she perceives and what he/she is able to understand with his/her experiences.

Indeed, thus proving there is no thread that is untrollable for him/her.

If you think that I'm trolling there is always this report button on the top right corner of each post. Press it and explain then your arguments to the mods. Tell them "I think that this person is trolling because I don't agree with his/her views".

I personally don't perceive as trolling different points of view. If everyone agreed with every other then there would be no need to discuss any kind of subject. We would all post the phrase, "yes you are right, yes I agree", and then .....talk about the weather who has a lot of variables in each area of this planet, and we can take him as granted in our every day life.

 

[sittingbison]

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.

 

[Tom375]

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.

This is pretty much how i see it happened albeit with what little we have to go on at the moment.
It explains the accuracy also the head shot - she's behind the door screaming he knows exactly where to shoot.

 

[Cerberus]

Wasn't going to comment on this story as usually like to await a few more facts before condemning someone.. but this seems pretty much open and shut case the only thing to be determined is whether it is pre-meditated or not. If it's pre-meditated it certainly lacks the finesse of those i used to watch on Colombo. However if there's a signicant gap in his shots at her (purporttedly there is) then that would be pre-meditated, No?

Their in bed together
He allegedly (his words) goes to the balcony
If he did go to the balcony (without his legs??) he returns to the room and hears a noise..
Surely if you return to the room (no alarms etc) you assume that it's the person you were just in bed with? If for some reason this isn't your inital reaction you would normally say (in this case Reeva), Is that you? - end of problem.
To believe that he came back into the room heard a noise from the bathroom (I assume its en-suite) and never once checked whether it was her (or if he did think it was an intruder that he did not think maybe i should get her out of the bed/room whilst i sort this) and that at no stage during this period she was not heard to say anything or cry or sob like she might indicating that it was a woman let alone his girlfriend is a far stretch i'm afraid.
Think the bat might be a red herring it was said it was used to break the door down - which makes sense, there'd of been a lot of blood in the bathroom at this stage so easy for it end up in the state alleged. Only question on that is the fractured skull., Is it possible for a bullet to do that or maybe something fell on her when he broke the door down. If he'd beaten her with a cricket bat first , I don't see he would have needed to be shooting at her through a locked bathroom door she'd have been unconscious before that... Could be wrong..

You can beat someone with a bat without knocking them unconscious. Still his story is fairly believable on the bat part. Anyways I'm fairly sure the pst mortem can determine whether she was hit with the bat or is it just touched her blood. If she was beaten with it that shots a giant hole in his story.

I also took two other things away from his story. First of all his own story paints him as bat-**** crazy because, as you also say, it's just not rational to think the person in the bathroom is an intruder and start blasting away. He's practically admitting reckless homicide.

Secondly he says he shot her only through the door, whole the police say he probably shot her once in the bedroom (where they found a casing) and then 3 more times through the door. He might be able to come up with some story that explains the bullet casing, but if they find a blood trail, they can count the holes in the door (which might be hard depending on how badly it's smashed with the bat) or if perhaps the post mortem can prove that some time passed between the first and subsequent wounds that also disproved his story.

 

[Tom375]

You can beat someone with a bat without knocking them unconscious. .

True although if it cracked her skull you'd of thought that it would have been a likely outcome. If he hit her with a cricket bat round the headd it don't matter whether she was unconscious or not, it is unlikely that she'd be in a state to escape him and locke herself in the bathroom given her state and the close proximity he'd be in. Which is why i don't buy it, also i think the police would have used it in the charge by now as they've had enough time to conclude this by now. Also as you say it would completely undermine any defence so don't think they would not have considered.

Still his story is fairly believable on the bat part. Anyways I'm fairly sure the pst mortem can determine whether she was hit with the bat or is it just touched her blood. If she was beaten with it that shots a giant hole in his story.

I also took two other things away from his story. First of all his own story paints him as bat-**** crazy because, as you also say, it's just not rational to think the person in the bathroom is an intruder and start blasting away. He's practically admitting reckless homicide.

Secondly he says he shot her only through the door, whole the police say he probably shot her once in the bedroom (where they found a casing) and then 3 more times through the door. He might be able to come up with some story that explains the bullet casing, but if they find a blood trail, they can count the holes in the door (which might be hard depending on how badly it's smashed with the bat) or if perhaps the post mortem can prove that some time passed between the first and subsequent wounds that also disproved his story.

Agreed I focussed on his defence argument because even his defence seemed ludicrous to me. The police statement which has her being shot before she left the bedroom makes his case seemingly indefesible and the case for pre-med strong.

 

[Tom375]

I would have thought in this day and age whoever carried out the autopsy would be able to discern between damage caused by a bullet and a bat.

True.. just checked on that it was the prosecution

"Prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court that in the early hours of the morning of 14 February, Mr Pistorius - a double amputee - had got up from bed, put on his prostheses, and fired his pistol through the locked door of the bathroom.

He shot four times and hit Ms Steenkamp three times, Mr Nel said.

He added that the defendant later broke down the bathroom door with a cricket bat and carried the body downstairs."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21503370

She was buried today post-mortem would have been carried out immediately therefore assume no evidence of bat being used.
Also just noted that in this report it doesn't mention her being shot before she locked herself in the bathroom as previously reported. Don't know whether this has been dropped or just not properly reported.

How long is the hearing going on for? Is it prosecution state their claims, defense states theirs and then another round? Looking at the reports it seems like the defense has just stated their case but they haven't offered an explanation to the role of the cricket bat.

Saw some report quoting a SA lawyer today saying that this might take a year to come to court!

 

[JimmyFingers]

Forensics should be able to establish what happened in the room. For example if she was shot before the bathroom the blood splatter will be apparent, whereas if she was only hit within the bathroom the blood spray will be confined to there. If he carried the bodiy through the room afterwards there would have been blood from that but I would expect it to be of a dramatically different pattern and presumably easy to distinguish. If her injuries were restricted to the bathroom, and gun shot only his story holds some water, if she was beaten or shot outside of the bathroom and then escaped to the bathroom where upon he gunned her down through the door he's bang to rights

 

[thehog]

Forensics should be able to establish what happened in the room. For example if she was shot before the bathroom the blood splatter will be apparent, whereas if she was only hit within the bathroom the blood spray will be confined to there. If he carried the bodiy through the room afterwards there would have been blood from that but I would expect it to be of a dramatically different pattern and presumably easy to distinguish. If her injuries were restricted to the bathroom, and gun shot only his story holds some water, if she was beaten or shot outside of the bathroom and then escaped to the bathroom where upon he gunned her down through the door he's bang to rights

Wow! They can do all that?

 

[Tom375]

Forensics should be able to establish what happened in the room. For example if she was shot before the bathroom the blood splatter will be apparent, whereas if she was only hit within the bathroom the blood spray will be confined to there. If he carried the bodiy through the room afterwards there would have been blood from that but I would expect it to be of a dramatically different pattern and presumably easy to distinguish. If her injuries were restricted to the bathroom, and gun shot only his story holds some water, if she was beaten or shot outside of the bathroom and then escaped to the bathroom where upon he gunned her down through the door he's bang to rights

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?

 

[Cyivel]

He says he was on the balcony of his house, not that, that is any sort of point to say he isn't guilty I mean people often get up and go to the toilet in the night so it's hardly a surprise someone would be in there.

 

[Descender]

If that is what you've got from all that I've said above, it is rather futility for me to reply or try to discuss with you. I mean that everyone makes his/her mind according to what he/she perceives and what he/she is able to understand with his/her experiences.



If you think that I'm trolling there is always this report button on the top right corner of each post. Press it and explain then your arguments to the mods. Tell them "I think that this person is trolling because I don't agree with his/her views".

I personally don't perceive as trolling different points of view. If everyone agreed with every other then there would be no need to discuss any kind of subject. We would all post the phrase, "yes you are right, yes I agree", and then .....talk about the weather who has a lot of variables in each area of this planet, and we can take him as granted in our every day life.

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.

 

[Tom375]

He says he was on the balcony of his house, not that, that is any sort of point to say he isn't guilty I mean people often get up and go to the toilet in the night so it's hardly a surprise someone would be in there.

Exactly he was on the balcony, this was i imagine the only door of the house open. If an intruder were to enter they would have had to been noticed by him.

His reaction having been on the balcony...
Right better go back to bed..
Oh Crikey! Someone's in the bathroom, Where's my gun? Better go and shoot them though the door they could be using my toothbrush..
Job done, Where's Reeva? Oh no! I knew forgot something...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Wow! They can do all that?

I wonder if Forensics can prove if Sky are clean?

Apparently you can't prove being clean.

Oh **** off you moron