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.
Her bladder may have been bursting and she had to run for the loo. No time to chit chat.
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.
Oh, I didn't get that from seeing him at the Paralympics. Interesting. So does he walk on the end of his stumps? Is he 5'11' on his stumps? Then the angle of the bullets is not so significant.
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.
Aren't there reports of witnesses saying there was a period of non-stop shouting as well as screams from a woman in the period just up to the time of the incident? So, IF true, there's your "fit of rage" right there.
That sounds more like cuban heels rather than prosthetic legs...
He does wear prosthetic legs, but there are hollows in his prosthetic legs that he fits his long, thin stumps into. He still has lower leg bones. He doesn't have ankles and feet.
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.
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...
That much hasn't been established though.
That is simply you transferring what you think onto everyone else.
As is on public record, it seems he's quite the hot head.
He does wear prosthetic legs, but there are hollows in his prosthetic legs that he fits his long, thin stumps into. He still has lower leg bones. He doesn't have ankles and feet.
For motive, lots of people mention Reeva's intelligence. She had a law degree. She was not the sort of girl who would put up with any bullying or controlling, either physical or verbal. OP might not have liked her intelligence allowing her to argue with him. He may have thought she was being too clever to answer back to him and stand up for herself.
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.
fair enough.
There are 2 big dividing points in the events:
1. Was it a) domestic/rage incident or was it b) a mistaken intruder threat?
2. Was it self defense to shoot trough the door or was it murder (know matter who was behind the door)
On point 1 I cant decide, because there is not enough evidence. I think there are a lot of discrepancies which make you doubt OPs story up to the point of the shooting but nothing that couldnt be amix of coincidence or bad judgement.
But on point 2 I would say definitely murder as I don't think there are grounds for OP to feel threatened by what we know was the reality (a woman having a pee). Even in the worst scenario in OPs head there was not much of a threat. So for me it is murder.
If we believe OP on point 1 he behaved in a completely reckless way which goes against a lot of common sense for survival, and sounds more like Rambo. But idiocy is not a mitigating circumstance in a case like this. The poor woman is dead as a minimum because he is an irresponsible fool. If he is let off with this, it basically gives anyone the right to shoot someone in their own home, guest, partner whatever because you can always claim they made a funny noise.
Her bladder may have been bursting and she had to run for the loo. No time to chit chat.
Oh, I didn't get that from seeing him at the Paralympics. Interesting. So does he walk on the end of his stumps? Is he 5'11' on his stumps? Then the angle of the bullets is not so significant.
Except, as someone noted earlier, if the shots were angled downwards, that would not what you would expect if someone was shooting to kill.
Although this is all a muddy area given the situation and lack of light.
Except, as someone noted earlier, if the shots were angled downwards, that would not what you would expect if someone was shooting to kill.
Although this is all a muddy area given the situation and lack of light.
If they are downwards through the lock or hinges, they would indicate "trying to break the door down" which would not support his story, but rather that he was trying to get at his girlfriend to attack (as he can't kick the door down).
Aren't there reports of witnesses saying there was a period of non-stop shouting as well as screams from a woman in the period just up to the time of the incident? So, IF true, there's your "fit of rage" right there.
If true... I'll be surprised if any witnesses can prove the alleged argument was coming from Oscar's house.
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.
5'2", not 5'11". I remember this because it's the same height as me.
My main scepticism of the "premeditated murder" argument is that if you plan to murder someone, surely you come up with a better plan? Even if the premeditation was quite short, you'd get rid of the body at least. Realistically, he had about 24 hours before someone noticed she wasn't around, and longer before she was officially reported missing. He lives in a country with scads of unoccupied wilderness, deep rivers with crocodiles in them and a sky-high suspicious death rate. Disposing of a body there would be far less difficult than many other places.
5'2", not 5'11". I remember this because it's the same height as me.
You and I are 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.
5'2", not 5'11". I remember this because it's the same height as me.
My main scepticism of the "premeditated murder" argument is that if you plan to murder someone, surely you come up with a better plan? Even if the premeditation was quite short, you'd get rid of the body at least. Realistically, he had about 24 hours before someone noticed she wasn't around, and longer before she was officially reported missing. He lives in a country with scads of unoccupied wilderness, deep rivers with crocodiles in them and a sky-high suspicious death rate. Disposing of a body there would be far less difficult than many other places.
I think 'premeditated murder' is only in relation to when he fired he intended to kill whoever it was he believed he was shooting at. Not whether he planned to murder his girlfriend.
He could've (could) gotten away with it if his versions of events made sense but they don't (to me at least).
Comments
Her bladder may have been bursting and she had to run for the loo. No time to chit chat.
Oh, I didn't get that from seeing him at the Paralympics. Interesting. So does he walk on the end of his stumps? Is he 5'11' on his stumps? Then the angle of the bullets is not so significant.
Umm...innocent until proven guilty?
Of course, you have
Aren't there reports of witnesses saying there was a period of non-stop shouting as well as screams from a woman in the period just up to the time of the incident? So, IF true, there's your "fit of rage" right there.
Not for massive marketing campaigns.
He's done as far as marketing goes. As soon as this is over, he won't get sponsored for dust.
He does wear prosthetic legs, but there are hollows in his prosthetic legs that he fits his long, thin stumps into. He still has lower leg bones. He doesn't have ankles and feet.
Edit: I've discovered my finding was wrong:
That much hasn't been established though.
That is simply you transferring what you think onto everyone else.
As is on public record, it seems he's quite the hot head.
This shows him without blades on.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7fd37uxTW1r1thtao1_1280.jpg
fair enough.
There are 2 big dividing points in the events:
1. Was it a) domestic/rage incident or was it b) a mistaken intruder threat?
2. Was it self defense to shoot trough the door or was it murder (know matter who was behind the door)
On point 1 I cant decide, because there is not enough evidence. I think there are a lot of discrepancies which make you doubt OPs story up to the point of the shooting but nothing that couldnt be amix of coincidence or bad judgement.
But on point 2 I would say definitely murder as I don't think there are grounds for OP to feel threatened by what we know was the reality (a woman having a pee). Even in the worst scenario in OPs head there was not much of a threat. So for me it is murder.
If we believe OP on point 1 he behaved in a completely reckless way which goes against a lot of common sense for survival, and sounds more like Rambo. But idiocy is not a mitigating circumstance in a case like this. The poor woman is dead as a minimum because he is an irresponsible fool. If he is let off with this, it basically gives anyone the right to shoot someone in their own home, guest, partner whatever because you can always claim they made a funny noise.
When you look at his blades, you can see long black caps. That's where his lower legs are fitted into.
It's more likely that he uses his knees to get around. If this were the case, it would put him at around 5' 5"? Edit: 5' 2", more likely?
Except, as someone noted earlier, if the shots were angled downwards, that would not what you would expect if someone was shooting to kill.
Although this is all a muddy area given the situation and lack of light.
That seems to be the critical matter.
In my humble opinion he would use his knees to walk on and not the small stumps to balance on .
No I wouldn't say that.
If they are downwards through the lock or hinges, they would indicate "trying to break the door down" which would not support his story, but rather that he was trying to get at his girlfriend to attack (as he can't kick the door down).
I would think you'd be right. There doesn't appear to be any muscles below the knee.
If true... I'll be surprised if any witnesses can prove the alleged argument was coming from Oscar's house.
5'2", not 5'11". I remember this because it's the same height as me.
My main scepticism of the "premeditated murder" argument is that if you plan to murder someone, surely you come up with a better plan? Even if the premeditation was quite short, you'd get rid of the body at least. Realistically, he had about 24 hours before someone noticed she wasn't around, and longer before she was officially reported missing. He lives in a country with scads of unoccupied wilderness, deep rivers with crocodiles in them and a sky-high suspicious death rate. Disposing of a body there would be far less difficult than many other places.
Thanks for that.
You and I are wrong.
I think 'premeditated murder' is only in relation to when he fired he intended to kill whoever it was he believed he was shooting at. Not whether he planned to murder his girlfriend.
He could've (could) gotten away with it if his versions of events made sense but they don't (to me at least).