Well to put it bluntly if I were on a jury and listened to Oscars story I wouldnt believe a word of it .Its all to contrived and coincidental and unbelievable
And by the same token, it would have been light enough for him to see that she wasn't in bed?
Not necessarily. When she allegedly went to the bathroom, he was on the balcony with the curtains open so there definitely would have been some light. When he came back in, he drew the curtains making it pitch black.
Thinking about it though, given the position of the bed and the balcony, surely he would have been able to see the bed unless he walked in backwards from the balcony? And when he was walking back into the bedroom from the balcony, the curtains weren't drawn so would have let light in.
Perhaps he will say the fan was in held in such a way that it obscured his vision.
Their top detective will be uncomfortably close to the civil authorities, and susceptible to political pressure, should they wish to bring pressure for a certain "result" to emerge. I think the original lead detective has already been subjected to severe pressure from above and there are many questions to be answered about the decision to dig up some old charges that had previously been dropped, just at this moment.
I don't now think Pistorious will either be refused bail or convicted of murder - though he's guilty as hell of recklessly killing his partner. The SA authorities will see to it that if the evidence is against him, he gets off on technicalities/police incompetence, anything they can dream up. Pistorious may turn out literally to be above the law.
I really don't see taking Botha off the case in the circumstances is part of a white wash.
And given what a balls up his involvement in the first place has been, replacing him with their apparently top detective seems fairly unremarkable.
Oliveira stands 1.77 meters (5-foot-9) on his everyday legs but, three weeks before the Paralympics, switched to blades that boosted his height to 1.81 meters (5-foot-11) in competition, the London Guardian reported.
Well to put it bluntly if I were on a jury and listened to Oscars story I wouldnt believe a word of it .Its all to contrived and coincidental and unbelievable
So much of feels contradictory.
At one minute he is terrified, the next he is a gung-ho super hero.
Lets just think about what the noises are that alert him. His GF has gone to the bathroom and locked the door. Is it the sound of the door locking, does she do a big fart, is it the sound of the toilet paper rustling?
Whatever the noise, he has to have heard it from the balcony or balcony doors around a 180% bend and this is loud enough for him to have then become suspicious. Maybe she slammed the door when she went to the loo. maybe she dropped her phone.
Not saying anything other than, what was the noise that alerted him. As the bathroom window was open maybe the noise was outside and just seemed to come from the bathroom.
But for us to believe a self-defence argument we have to believe that OP felt threatened. Not only did he place himself in much greater danger by entering an unlit room round a blind corner. The threat from any possible intruder was also minimized by being locked in a cubicle where couldnt see OP to shoot him.
It would be like me claiming I was threatened by a vicious dog for us to then find out that the dog was shut in a room where it couldn't see me and that I moved towards it shouting. To me it would seem like he escalated what was a reduced threat. Therefore no self-defence
Oh, I agree what once he had the intruder cornered, at gunpoint, behind a closed door, the self defence argument takes a bit of a knock.
But I thought this was about whether or not he thought it was an intruder in the first place.
At one minute he is terrified, the next he is a gung-ho super hero.
I believe he saw himself as a gung-ho superhero when he went in action. When he realised he had badly screwed up, he put out a spin that he was terrified, scared, etc.
A lot of it comes down to what anyone believes would be the first thought that comes into their minds would be.
You are in bed with your partner and step out onto the balcony. Whilst you are out there, you hear a noise coming from the en-suite attached to that bedroom. Do you consider it so completely impossible that your partner has got up for a wee, that you don't even check on them whilst going for your gun (under the bed that should have said partner in) and fire off a few shots. Even if it is pitch black, you'd still be within feet of them so, to be honest, could probably even tell if someone was there using your other senses.
Regardless of people saying that you don't know what you would do until you are in that situation, I can 100% guarantee that I would have checked my partner ont he way through.
A lot of it comes down to what anyone believes would be the first thought that comes into their minds would be.
You are in bed with your partner and step out onto the balcony. Whilst you are out there, you hear a noise coming from the en-suite attached to that bedroom. Do you consider it so completely impossible that your partner has got up for a wee, that you don't even check on them whilst going for your gun (under the bed that should have said partner in) and fire off a few shots. Even if it is pitch black, you'd still be within feet of them so, to be honest, could probably even tell if someone was there using your other sensesRegardless of people saying that you don't know what you would do until you are in that situation, I can 100% guarantee that I would have checked my partner ont he way through..
And I can 100% say that I would at very least scream out his name and make damn sure I wasnt firing at my husband
Yes. His natural height is measured from head to his stumps, which end in the calf area. His prosthetics are designed to fit his thin, long stumps in calf-area caps.
Edit: I've discovered my finding was wrong:
Oliveira stands 1.77 meters (5-foot-9) on his everyday legs but, three weeks before the Paralympics, switched to blades that boosted his height to 1.81 meters (5-foot-11) in competition, the London Guardian reported.
And yet, so far, there has been no indication of what could've caused this 'fit of rage'. Without a motive the prosecution's case is flimsy.
He's got previous history of being hot headed, mistakenly letting guns go off in restaurants and threatening to break someone's legs. It probably doesn't take much to set him off, as attested by a (possibly bitter?) ex-girlfriend.
A lot of it comes down to what anyone believes would be the first thought that comes into their minds would be.
You are in bed with your partner and step out onto the balcony. Whilst you are out there, you hear a noise coming from the en-suite attached to that bedroom. Do you consider it so completely impossible that your partner has got up for a wee, that you don't even check on them whilst going for your gun (under the bed that should have said partner in) and fire off a few shots. Even if it is pitch black, you'd still be within feet of them so, to be honest, could probably even tell if someone was there using your other senses.
Regardless of people saying that you don't know what you would do until you are in that situation, I can 100% guarantee that I would have checked my partner ont he way through.
Yes, but in a court of law, if you are trying to prosecute someone, you need a better argument than "But that's not what I would have done."
One more thing about OP's story that is strange is that his girlfriend wakes up, and goes off to the toilet without saying a word about the fact that he is up and about. In my experience, an inevitable reaction would be something like "What are you doing out of bed? Is everything OK? Sort yourself out by the time I get back from the loo."
So, not only does he not notice she left the bed, but she did so in an unbelievable (to me at least) way.
Yes, but in a court of law, if you are trying to prosecute someone, you need a better argument than "But that's not what I would have done."
True, but (and I'm not sure what the exact legalese is) 'that's not what anyone at all, in the world, ever would have done - this whole story is nonsense' does carry some weight...
Comments
Sky News reporter said a while ago, it had been raised only yesterday. One wonders who to believe?
Whenever it was, the question is... why? And on who's orders?
Not sure about this. I hadn't even heard about the memory stick until it was mentioned in the tweets earlier today.
Not necessarily. When she allegedly went to the bathroom, he was on the balcony with the curtains open so there definitely would have been some light. When he came back in, he drew the curtains making it pitch black.
Thinking about it though, given the position of the bed and the balcony, surely he would have been able to see the bed unless he walked in backwards from the balcony? And when he was walking back into the bedroom from the balcony, the curtains weren't drawn so would have let light in.
Perhaps he will say the fan was in held in such a way that it obscured his vision.
He is kept in a cell away from other prisoners. Usually it is applied for the prisoner's own safety or as extra punishment.
How tall is his bed?
I can actually believe his story, up until the point that he shoots. Then im asking, why did he shoot? Why didnt he call out? etc etc.
I really don't see taking Botha off the case in the circumstances is part of a white wash.
And given what a balls up his involvement in the first place has been, replacing him with their apparently top detective seems fairly unremarkable.
If i knew the answer to that - I would be contacting The Sun's newsdesk pronto!
5' 11" without.
6' 1⁄2" with.
Edit: I've just discovered my finding was wrong:
So much of feels contradictory.
At one minute he is terrified, the next he is a gung-ho super hero.
Lets just think about what the noises are that alert him. His GF has gone to the bathroom and locked the door. Is it the sound of the door locking, does she do a big fart, is it the sound of the toilet paper rustling?
Whatever the noise, he has to have heard it from the balcony or balcony doors around a 180% bend and this is loud enough for him to have then become suspicious. Maybe she slammed the door when she went to the loo. maybe she dropped her phone.
Not saying anything other than, what was the noise that alerted him. As the bathroom window was open maybe the noise was outside and just seemed to come from the bathroom.
Oh, I agree what once he had the intruder cornered, at gunpoint, behind a closed door, the self defence argument takes a bit of a knock.
But I thought this was about whether or not he thought it was an intruder in the first place.
I believe he saw himself as a gung-ho superhero when he went in action. When he realised he had badly screwed up, he put out a spin that he was terrified, scared, etc.
You are in bed with your partner and step out onto the balcony. Whilst you are out there, you hear a noise coming from the en-suite attached to that bedroom. Do you consider it so completely impossible that your partner has got up for a wee, that you don't even check on them whilst going for your gun (under the bed that should have said partner in) and fire off a few shots. Even if it is pitch black, you'd still be within feet of them so, to be honest, could probably even tell if someone was there using your other senses.
Regardless of people saying that you don't know what you would do until you are in that situation, I can 100% guarantee that I would have checked my partner ont he way through.
His prosthetics only add 2 inches?
Are you sure ?
That sounds more like cuban heels rather than prosthetic legs...
And yet, so far, there has been no indication of what could've caused this 'fit of rage'. Without a motive the prosecution's case is flimsy.
That's a different aspect entirely.
You were questioning why an intruder would have gone into the bathroom in the first place.
I suggested that an intruder could have been trying to hide, or to look for an escape route.
That is quite separate to whether OP's subsequent action of shooting could be argued to be in self defence.
As I said above, I would certainly think the self defence argument is weakened once OP had the perceived threat contained, at gunpoint, in the toilet.
And I can 100% say that I would at very least scream out his name and make damn sure I wasnt firing at my husband
Yes. His natural height is measured from head to his stumps, which end in the calf area. His prosthetics are designed to fit his thin, long stumps in calf-area caps.
Edit: I've discovered my finding was wrong:
He's got previous history of being hot headed, mistakenly letting guns go off in restaurants and threatening to break someone's legs. It probably doesn't take much to set him off, as attested by a (possibly bitter?) ex-girlfriend.
Yes, but in a court of law, if you are trying to prosecute someone, you need a better argument than "But that's not what I would have done."
Well there is, given the multiple neighbours reporting loud arguments over the proceeding hours.
So, not only does he not notice she left the bed, but she did so in an unbelievable (to me at least) way.
I don't think that's contradictory.
He grabbed the gun precisely because he was terrified.
True, but (and I'm not sure what the exact legalese is) 'that's not what anyone at all, in the world, ever would have done - this whole story is nonsense' does carry some weight...