Oscar Pistorius

[Tom375]

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

Thanks for link - gives some missing details on what his defence is i.e bathroom window open, ladder etc..

 

[thirteen]

Thanks for link - gives some missing details on what his defence is i.e bathroom window open, ladder etc..

yes. and all things can be verified (or nullified). interesting.

 

[MarkvW]

yes. and all things can be verified (or nullified). interesting.

Yes. He's pinned himself down, that's for sure.

 

[Merckx index]

Yes, thanks for the link. One thing that had puzzled me is how he could shoot so effectively through the bathroom door. According to this, the toilet is in a stall within the bathroom. So he actually entered the bathroom, and fired shots into the stall. I take it the stall door is or was considerably less solid than the bathroom door.

Just from this, I see two gaping holes in his case. First is his claim that he screamed for the intruder to leave and Reeva to call the police, before he fired any shots. How could she possibly not hear that? He screamed before he reached the bathroom, and when he got there, he entered it, and had time to notice that the window was open, the toilet door was closed, and that there was movement coming from inside. All of this before he began shooting.

Second, he didn’t check to see if she were in bed when he returned from the balcony and heard the noise in the bathroom. Yet he says he grabbed his pistol from underneath the bed. IOW, he was right there by the bed, and he didn’t see she wasn’t in it? I realize that the room was dark, or so he claims—yet he also claims he could see no one was in the bathroom--but he could have easily felt the bed to see if she were there. If he was really so terrified of an intruder, wouldn’t he want to wake her and warn her before proceeding any further?

I understand he’s trying to make the case that he panicked, and didn’t necessarily act completely rationally, but this makes little sense. He assumes she is in bed, yet instead of gently waking her and warning her, he heads to the bathroom and only then screams for her to call the police? And he’s afraid to turn on the lights, but not afraid to scream?

Also unexplained is the shell in the bedroom. I think forensics will have a lot to say about other aspects of his story.

 

[Tom375]

Yes, thanks for the link. One thing that had puzzled me is how he could shoot so effectively through the bathroom door. According to this, the toilet is in a stall within the bathroom. So he actually entered the bathroom, and fired shots into the stall. I take it the stall door is or was considerably less solid than the bathroom door.

Just from this, I see two gaping holes in his case. First is his claim that he screamed for the intruder to leave and Reeva to call the police, before he fired any shots. How could she possibly not hear that? He screamed before he reached the bathroom, and when he got there, he entered it, and had time to notice that the window was open, the toilet door was closed, and that there was movement coming from inside. All of this before he began shooting.

Second, he didn’t check to see if she were in bed when he returned from the balcony and heard the noise in the bathroom. Yet he says he grabbed his pistol from underneath the bed. IOW, he was right there by the bed, and he didn’t see she wasn’t in it? I realize that the room was dark, or so he claims—yet he also claims he could see no one was in the bathroom--but he could have easily felt the bed to see if she were there. If he was really so terrified of an intruder, wouldn’t he want to wake her and warn her before proceeding any further?

I understand he’s trying to make the case that he panicked, and didn’t necessarily act completely rationally, but this makes little sense. He assumes she is in bed, yet instead of gently waking her and warning her, he heads to the bathroom and only then screams for her to call the police? And he’s afraid to turn on the lights, but not afraid to scream?

Also unexplained is the shell in the bedroom. I think forensics will have a lot to say about other aspects of his story.

Hi Merckz I've spent all day on this thread coz it don't make any sense - please read rest of my posts as you're saying exactly the same things.
To pick up on one of those points above as i have said earlier why would not his first reaction on returning to the bedroom and believing there to be an intruder is check his Mrs and quietly move her out getting her to call the police - its just not what you do - The first thing anyone would do in those circumstances is;
Make sure that everyone you love is out of harms way/not been harmed - in danger - then make the decision do you take this fu*ker on. Normally in UK you have to be careful as we don't have guns but there is a good chance the burgalar don't have a gun either so decision time. Still is get family or Mrs. out then deal with anything else!!!

P.S. From reports i read today prosecuters are no longer saying there was a shot fired in the bedroom which does change the complexion a bit however if you've got other sources please supply.

Still waiting for SA Lawyers brigade to supply concrete answers to 13's questions above...

 

[twothirds]

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.

The stumps are the actual ends of the amputated limbs. No cap or cover, just the bare end.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

The story he has put forth is not impossible.

Not checking where Reeva was would be a totally stupid thing to do but people do do incredibly stupid things.

Shouting and not getting any reply from Reeva either in the bathroom, or from the bedroom seems unlikely. She would have had to have been very heavily asleep not to wake. Perhaps if she took sleeping pills??

Then there is the shouting apparently heard by the neighbors and the time gap between shots that had been reported to explain.

He also claims to have limited movement without his legs on, something which makes perfect sense. He also claims to have gone out to the balcony to get a fan, close the sliding doors, blinds and curtains. It might be worth testing whether he is capable of undertaking those tasks without his prosthetic legs.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

Hi Merckz I've spent all day on this thread coz it don't make any sense - please read rest of my posts as you're saying exactly the same things.
To pick up on one of those points above as i have said earlier why would not his first reaction on returning to the bedroom and believing there to be an intruder is check his Mrs and quietly move her out getting her to call the police - its just not what you do - The first thing anyone would do in those circumstances is;
Make sure that everyone you love is out of harms way/not been harmed - in danger - then make the decision do you take this fu*ker on. Normally in UK you have to be careful as we don't have guns but there is a good chance the burgalar don't have a gun either so decision time. Still is get family or Mrs. out then deal with anything else!!!

P.S. From reports i read today prosecuters are no longer saying there was a shot fired in the bedroom which does change the complexion a bit however if you've got other sources please supply.

Still waiting for SA Lawyers brigade to supply concrete answers to 13's questions above...

The bit in bold does change things considerably and does make his story almost believable.

 

[Tom375]

The bit in bold does change things considerably and does make his story almost believable.

I don't see it changes anything more than whether it is pre-meditated murder or murder. Certainly dont see his story as believable at this stage.... far too many questions..

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

I don't see it changes anything more than whether it is pre-meditated murder or murder. Certainly dont see his story as believable at this stage.... far too many questions..

I do not think it is believable but almost believable. If there was evidence he shot her in the bedroom as was claimed it directly contradicted his story. Now that is no longer claimed that is one problem he no longer has to overcome.

My personal view is that he shot her so he is a murderer. The exact circumstance do not change my view of what he did. However it is a bit interesting to find out exactly what happened.

 

[rata de sentina]

The bit in bold does change things considerably and does make his story almost believable.

If his story is false then he is a menace to society and should be put away for 20 years.

If his story is true then he is a menace to society and should be put away for 20 years.

 

[Cerberus]

I do not think it is believable but almost believable. If there was evidence he shot her in the bedroom as was claimed it directly contradicted his story. Now that is no longer claimed that is one problem he no longer has to overcome.

Is that really no longer being claimed, or has the claim just not been mentioned yet in the first day of the hearing?

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

If his story is false then he is a menace to society and should be put away for 20 years.

If his story is true then he is a menace to society and should be put away for 20 years.

200 years not 20 years. Never release him.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

Is that really no longer being claimed, or has the claim just not been mentioned yet in the first day of the hearing?

I do not know.

 

[Tom375]

Fair play to South Africa on this one Life is Life on Pre-Meditated murder - there are a number of cases where that should have been the case in the UK.

 

[blackcat]

If his story is false then he is a menace to society and should be put away for 20 years.

If his story is true then he is a menace to society and should be put away for 20 years.

he was a good runner.

did so much for so many

give him a break

 

[Merckx index]

Hi Merckz I've spent all day on this thread coz it don't make any sense - please read rest of my posts as you're saying exactly the same things.

I actually read them before, and meant to say that I really agreed with your analysis.

The more I think about his claim that he screamed to her and the intruder, the more I wonder why he’s making it, because it’s so damaging to his case. Why not just say, I was an idiot, I was so sure that Reeva was in bed, and so afraid of giving my presence away to the intruder, that I just fired without saying anything.

I can think of two reasons:

a) he is mindful of civil damages, so does not want to say that he fired the shots without first checking in some way to see if it were Reeva in the toilet
b) a neighbor told police that s/he heard shouts from the house about the time at which the shootings seem to have occurred. Thus OP would have no choice but to say something that would account for that shouting. Note he didn’t just say that he confronted the supposed intruder in a loud voice, as I think many of us might do in that situation, but that he “screamed”. If that’s the case, he will have to be praying that the neighbor doesn’t testify hearing two different people shouting. Testimony like that, which of course would be challenged by the defense, could be crucial to the case if the forensics don’t settle it.

If his story is false then he is a menace to society and should be put away for 20 years.

If his story is true then he is a menace to society and should be put away for 20 years.

If he manages to beat the rap somehow, I assume Steenkamp’s family will have a really good case for civil damages. Gross negligence.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

So to my understanding it now heavily depends on what the witnesses have to say:

1) A witness reported to the sun there was a gap of 10 minutes between shots (not sure if this was just the sun printing BS)?

2) Multiple witnesses have according to the papers reported that they heard a verbal slanging match before the gunshots were fired.

Both of these would be difficult for him to explain but I thought his complex was quite secluded so its difficult to say how much neighbours could have heard.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.

As another said, stump refers to residual stump or residual limb, which is the part of the limb that remains after amputation. It's why some of us amputees have nick names like "stumpy" and of course all the play on words that include "stump" in the punchline.

You don't put a prosthetic limb on/off like a shoe or slipper - it is not a quick thing to do. It doesn't take forever either but there are some things you need to take care with. It's certainly an inconvenience when in bed and you need to get up in a hurry to do something, answer the door etc.

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?

The rubberised liner that one uses to connect limb to prosthetic (at least the type that Pistorous would use - similar to mine) means that the environment inside the liner is usually moist, warm/hot and salty, and the skin needs plenty of time outside of the prosthetic liner each day. At night in bed is normally sufficient, but not always.

Skin integrity is very very important for an amputee and leaving the prosthetic liner on would be an invitation for bad skin sores and infection. Skin wounds do not often heal well or quickly when in a leg liner and can prevent you from using the prosthetic altogether, which sucks. I had an ulcer on my stump that took two years to heal.

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.

I don't know what Pistorius chooses to do for mobility sans prosthetic legs. Everyone is different. He may scoot about on the floor, or have a wheelchair handy - much depends on suitability of the home for a chair. I use crutches if I need to get up quickly, but only because I still have one complete leg. My home is not suitable for a wheelchair. Crutches would be of little use to Pistorius unless he had at least one leg on.

I would be very surprised if he was not permitted to have prosthetic legs in prison. Remove a leg and it gets very hard to use it as a weapon, since you can't stand up, and any damage to a leg means he's stuck. However what will be a problem for him is the significant change of income - quality fitting prosthetics are very expensive, and need to be updated / changed fairly regularly. I can't imagine Ossur would continue their sponsorship.

Even the rubberised liners (not the legs themselves) cost me A$1150 each and last ~ 6 weeks when I'm in training. Prosthetics for me as someone with one transtibial amputation cost about the same a replacing a new car every 2 years would.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

b) a neighbor told police that s/he heard shouts from the house about the time at which the shootings seem to have occurred. Thus OP would have no choice but to say something that would account for that shouting. Note he didn’t just say that he confronted the supposed intruder in a loud voice, as I think many of us might do in that situation, but that he “screamed”. If that’s the case, he will have to be praying that the neighbor doesn’t testify hearing two different people shouting. Testimony like that, which of course would be challenged by the defense, could be crucial to the case if the forensics don’t settle.

I think this is the case, he might know he was shouting and be unsure of how much the witness heard (the speculation suggests he/she heard a lot).

I'm also waiting for a legal buff to come in here.

People have been suggesting the prosecution was harsh but if they know this to be the case, that might explain.

 

[RedheadDane]

If we're to believe his account, and I suppose we are - for the time being, then we're dealing with a guy suffering from some serious paranoia!
First of all there's the whole sleeping with a 9mm gun under the bed.
Secondly, well, if a person is in bed, under which there is a gun, with his girlfriend, goes out to fetch something, comes back, hears a strange sound from the bathroom and instantly thinks "Burglar!" rather than "Girlfriend." I'd say said person might have a problem...

 

[sittingbison]

Thanks Alex, thats very interesting info.

Are we presuming that the door was bashed in with the cricket bat and therefore its impossible to forensically determine the angle of shooting?

I somehow find it hard to believe he would stumble around on his stumps n the dark, gun in one hand, shooting at the "intruder".

 

[thirteen]

As another said, stump refers to residual stump or residual limb, which is the part of the limb that remains after amputation. It's why some of us amputees have nick names like "stumpy" and of course all the play on words that include "stump" in the punchline.

You don't put a prosthetic limb on/off like a shoe or slipper - it is not a quick thing to do. It doesn't take forever either but there are some things you need to take care with. It's certainly an inconvenience when in bed and you need to get up in a hurry to do something, answer the door etc.


The rubberised liner that one uses to connect limb to prosthetic (at least the type that Pistorous would use - similar to mine) means that the environment inside the liner is usually moist, warm/hot and salty, and the skin needs plenty of time outside of the prosthetic liner each day. At night in bed is normally sufficient, but not always.

Skin integrity is very very important for an amputee and leaving the prosthetic liner on would be an invitation for bad skin sores and infection. Skin wounds do not often heal well or quickly when in a leg liner and can prevent you from using the prosthetic altogether, which sucks. I had an ulcer on my stump that took two years to heal.


I don't know what Pistorius chooses to do for mobility sans prosthetic legs. Everyone is different. He may scoot about on the floor, or have a wheelchair handy - much depends on suitability of the home for a chair. I use crutches if I need to get up quickly, but only because I still have one complete leg. My home is not suitable for a wheelchair. Crutches would be of little use to Pistorius unless he had at least one leg on.

I would be very surprised if he was not permitted to have prosthetic legs in prison. Remove a leg and it gets very hard to use it as a weapon, since you can't stand up, and any damage to a leg means he's stuck. However what will be a problem for him is the significant change of income - quality fitting prosthetics are very expensive, and need to be updated / changed fairly regularly. I can't imagine Ossur would continue their sponsorship.

Even the rubberised liners (not the legs themselves) cost me A$1150 each and last ~ 6 weeks when I'm in training. Prosthetics for me as someone with one transtibial amputation cost about the same a replacing a new car every 2 years would.

Alex, thank you very much for sharing. it sheds light on what a lot people don't understand.

on a personal level, i find it sad to see that not much seems to have changed regarding the problems that can arise from prosthetics... they can make those amazing blades and yet comfort and everyday issues seem to remain.

(and apologies if i caused offence about the fellow i dated -- he was in theatre and could/did get in and out of his leg fairly quickly, but only for emergencies and/or brief stage entrances. it wasn't always comfortable, but he could -- though there were times it was a struggle if it was done improperly too many times in a row.)

do you have any feelings about the case thus? does the scenario of when he said he put the prosthesis ring true to you?

again, many thanks.

 

[mikkemus23]

Nel says the state (the prosecution) will indicate the deliberate firing of shots.

The prosecution is in possession of a statement indicating there was an argument, Nel says.

He says he will submit a witness statement to the effect that a woman heard non-stop fighting between 2am and 3am on the morning of Reeva Steenkamp's death.

Steenkamp was dressed when she was shot, he says.

Not looking good for OP

 

[mikkemus23]

Nel says the accused's actions and phone calls on the night indicate pre-planning. He says there was a "deliberate aiming of shots at the toilet from about 1.5m". He says Steenkamp was shot on the right side of her body and this is part of the state's case that this was premeditated murder.

Pistorius's lawyer, Roux, is satisfied with these statements and the hearing moves on to call investigating officer Hilton Botha.

Well......

Nel asks Botha if shots were fired directly and toilet basin and he agrees. "If you fire straight at the door, you miss the toilet."

Botha says the police think the gunman walked into the bathroom, faced the wall where the window was and fired straight at the toilet door.