I think Andrew Harding of the BBC has it spot on to how I feel about this terrible incident right now.
"My own view is that, even by his own account of events, Oscar Pistorius displayed the most extreme recklessness in firing blindly into a closed door, without even the most basic appreciation of who or what might lie behind it.
Perhaps he is being punished enough by losing the woman he told friends he thought might become his wife.
Having sat just over a metre away from him for the last four days in court, I can tell you he is a broken man.
But still, it is hard to imagine he will walk away from a trial without some form of sanction, and with his life and career changed forever by four shots fired into a toilet door."
I think Andrew Harding of the BBC has it spot on to how I feel about this terrible incident right now.
"My own view is that, even by his own account of events, Oscar Pistorius displayed the most extreme recklessness in firing blindly into a closed door, without even the most basic appreciation of who or what might lie behind it.
Perhaps he is being punished enough by losing the woman he told friends he thought might become his wife.
Having sat just over a metre away from him for the last four days in court, I can tell you he is a broken man.
But still, it is hard to imagine he will walk away from a trial without some form of sanction, and with his life and career changed forever by four shots fired into a toilet door."
I dunno - I think if the prosecution had evidence she had been shot anywhere else in the bedroom - and there would be blood trails and such - then it would have come out at the bail hearing and he wouldn't be out on bail.
Quite right Aggs, my prospective on this and them allowing him bail is that they must believe that his account is a feasible account though what that has questions to be answered of course. They would surely have had to establish that his story had some substance which would have been substantiated by at least some forensic evidence that pin pointed the actual shooting scene and other places where the body had lain.
I dunno - I think if the prosecution had evidence she had been shot anywhere else in the bedroom - and there would be blood trails and such - then it would have come out at the bail hearing and he wouldn't be out on bail.
I read somewhere today (can't recall where) that the prosecution always believed that he would get bail, and their strategy was to force Pistorius' defence team to reveal their whole case whilst keeping their own cards tightly to their chests. The fact of the matter now is that Pistorius is painted into a corner, he gave a definitive statement of what he claims happened, and they now have up to a year to build a case to dismantle that whole defence argument. The defence, on the other hand, don't know what the prosecution's case will be, only that they believe it is premeditated murder.
I read somewhere today (can't recall where) that the prosecution always believed that he would get bail, and their strategy was to force Pistorius' defence team to reveal their whole case whilst keeping their own cards tightly to their chests. The fact of the matter now is that Pistorius is painted into a corner, he gave a definitive statement of what he claims happened, and they now have up to a year to build a case to dismantle that whole defence argument.
I dont mind this, if he is telling the truth, he has nothing to fear, but if he is lying he will be caught out, good.
I read somewhere today (can't recall where) that the prosecution always believed that he would get bail, and their strategy was to force Pistorius' defence team to reveal their whole case whilst keeping their own cards tightly to their chests. The fact of the matter now is that Pistorius is painted into a corner, he gave a definitive statement of what he claims happened, and they now have up to a year to build a case to dismantle that whole defence argument.
Well yes, but if they knew - and could prove - that she had been shot in the open bedroom before the bathroom section ever took place, then they would have saved themselves 3 days - at least one of them where it didn't go so well for them. The phrase bang to rights would have been quite appropriate.
I dont mind this, if he is telling the truth, he has nothing to fear, but if he is lying he will be caught out, good.
If you look at the bail hearing, the prosecution actually revealed very little of their case. Whereas the defence made that statement and now have to stick by it.
Thanks for answering. So did he unlock it in order to go to the bathroom with his gun.
I would have thought he'd feel safer with the door locked rather than vulnerable
No, you need to take a look at a plan of the layout.
The bathroom is en suite with the bedroom, but not opening directly off it. There is a passageway (lined with wardrobes and other storage, I think) which leads to the bathroom. Both the passage and bathroom can only be accessed from the bedroom, which has its main door leading to the upstairs hall area. This latter is the door that was locked, not the door into the bathroom.
If you look at the bail hearing, the prosecution actually revealed very little of their case. Whereas the defence made that statement and now have to stick by it.
That would only be a problem for the defence if they were lying.
I dont mind this, if he is telling the truth, he has nothing to fear, but if he is lying he will be caught out, good.
But if he's telling the truth, then he fired four shots through a closed door because he thought there was an intruder in there. Is it perfectly OK in South Africa to shoot an intruder who's presenting no threat to you?
That's certainly the inference from all the reports.
I dunno - I think if the prosecution had evidence she had been shot anywhere else in the bedroom - and there would be blood trails and such - then it would have come out at the bail hearing and he wouldn't be out on bail.
They just found the bullet apparently. Four shots were fired, one in the bedroom and three in the bathroom. Although I did read this in the paper and didn't hear it on the actual news reports
What if he is basically telling the truth but has changed certain details to make it seem better for him ?
The things I could believe were exaggerated we're his feelings of terror and, sadly, the concern for Reeva,
I could see that believing the thing he had worried about for sometime was actually happening, there was an adrenaline surge, gung-ho-ness took over and he probably didn't gave her a second thought until it was over.
In the cold light of day that doesn't sound so good.
But if he's telling the truth, then he fired four shots through a closed door because he thought there was an intruder in there. Is it perfectly OK in South Africa to shoot an intruder who's presenting no threat to you?
That's certainly the inference from all the reports.
I would think that any intruder in my house presents a treat to me. From what I have read about crime in South Africa I would say that an intruder in a house there is an even bigger threat.
I would think that any intruder in my house presents a treat to me. From what I have read about crime in South Africa I would say that an intruder in a house there is an even bigger threat.
Except there was no intruder and he never even saw anyone, he just heard a noise (if he is to be believed). So he then adopted a Rambo stance and set out to kill the 'intruder'. No matter how you look at it, he decided to kill that night. Either his girlfriend or an 'intruder'.
They just found the bullet apparently. Four shots were fired, one in the bedroom and three in the bathroom. Although I did read this in the paper and didn't hear it on the actual news reports
I find a healthy sceptism of things in unverified reports that find their way into the papers to be essential - particully if they are uncredited, from a 'friend close to the family', 'someone close to the investigation' or 'a source'. Only believe things that are actually credited to an actual named person and if quotation marks are used and even then, with care.
I would think that any intruder in my house presents a treat to me. From what I have read about crime in South Africa I would say that an intruder in a house there is an even bigger threat.
Yes. I think people should keep this in mind before going down the usual route of saying 'If it was in my house...yada, yada, yada'. It's so easy to judge when you're not that exact person in those exact circumstances.
Except there was no intruder and he never even saw anyone, he just heard a noise (if he is to be believed). So he then adopted a Rambo stance and set out to kill the 'intruder'. No matter how you look at it, he decided to kill that night. Either his girlfriend or an 'intruder'.
I know a lot of people have a problem with this, but I dont. If somebody comes into my house in the middle of the night (as OP says he believed had happened) then I believe they loose any rights and whatever happens to them is their own fault.
They just found the bullet apparently. Four shots were fired, one in the bedroom and three in the bathroom. Although I did read this in the paper and didn't hear it on the actual news reports
That has not come from any official connected with the investigation. It's merely tabloid tittle-tattle at the moment and should be dismissed as such.
I know a lot of people have a problem with this, but I dont. If somebody comes into my house in the middle of the night (as OP says he believed had happened) then I believe they loose any rights and whatever happens to them is their own fault.
Totally agree. Now imagine being in South Africa, being wealthy and also a double amputee.
Comments
"My own view is that, even by his own account of events, Oscar Pistorius displayed the most extreme recklessness in firing blindly into a closed door, without even the most basic appreciation of who or what might lie behind it.
Perhaps he is being punished enough by losing the woman he told friends he thought might become his wife.
Having sat just over a metre away from him for the last four days in court, I can tell you he is a broken man.
But still, it is hard to imagine he will walk away from a trial without some form of sanction, and with his life and career changed forever by four shots fired into a toilet door."
This sums up how I feel too.
Quite right Aggs, my prospective on this and them allowing him bail is that they must believe that his account is a feasible account though what that has questions to be answered of course. They would surely have had to establish that his story had some substance which would have been substantiated by at least some forensic evidence that pin pointed the actual shooting scene and other places where the body had lain.
I read somewhere today (can't recall where) that the prosecution always believed that he would get bail, and their strategy was to force Pistorius' defence team to reveal their whole case whilst keeping their own cards tightly to their chests. The fact of the matter now is that Pistorius is painted into a corner, he gave a definitive statement of what he claims happened, and they now have up to a year to build a case to dismantle that whole defence argument. The defence, on the other hand, don't know what the prosecution's case will be, only that they believe it is premeditated murder.
I dont mind this, if he is telling the truth, he has nothing to fear, but if he is lying he will be caught out, good.
Well yes, but if they knew - and could prove - that she had been shot in the open bedroom before the bathroom section ever took place, then they would have saved themselves 3 days - at least one of them where it didn't go so well for them. The phrase bang to rights would have been quite appropriate.
If you look at the bail hearing, the prosecution actually revealed very little of their case. Whereas the defence made that statement and now have to stick by it.
No, you need to take a look at a plan of the layout.
The bathroom is en suite with the bedroom, but not opening directly off it. There is a passageway (lined with wardrobes and other storage, I think) which leads to the bathroom. Both the passage and bathroom can only be accessed from the bedroom, which has its main door leading to the upstairs hall area. This latter is the door that was locked, not the door into the bathroom.
That would be very silly of him and his team, cause if he is caught out on one lie in the trial, his whole case becomes suspect.
That would only be a problem for the defence if they were lying.
Of course. But obviously the prosecution believe they were (as do I).
But if he's telling the truth, then he fired four shots through a closed door because he thought there was an intruder in there. Is it perfectly OK in South Africa to shoot an intruder who's presenting no threat to you?
That's certainly the inference from all the reports.
Oh please.
"We're not going to do any interviews at this time. We'll sit down with the lawyers and make a decision."
That implies that they will be granting interviews, just not yet.
And please show me where I specifically mentioned Pistorius in this connection.
They just found the bullet apparently. Four shots were fired, one in the bedroom and three in the bathroom. Although I did read this in the paper and didn't hear it on the actual news reports
The things I could believe were exaggerated we're his feelings of terror and, sadly, the concern for Reeva,
I could see that believing the thing he had worried about for sometime was actually happening, there was an adrenaline surge, gung-ho-ness took over and he probably didn't gave her a second thought until it was over.
In the cold light of day that doesn't sound so good.
I would think that any intruder in my house presents a treat to me. From what I have read about crime in South Africa I would say that an intruder in a house there is an even bigger threat.
Except there was no intruder and he never even saw anyone, he just heard a noise (if he is to be believed). So he then adopted a Rambo stance and set out to kill the 'intruder'. No matter how you look at it, he decided to kill that night. Either his girlfriend or an 'intruder'.
I find a healthy sceptism of things in unverified reports that find their way into the papers to be essential - particully if they are uncredited, from a 'friend close to the family', 'someone close to the investigation' or 'a source'. Only believe things that are actually credited to an actual named person and if quotation marks are used and even then, with care.
Yes. I think people should keep this in mind before going down the usual route of saying 'If it was in my house...yada, yada, yada'. It's so easy to judge when you're not that exact person in those exact circumstances.
I know a lot of people have a problem with this, but I dont. If somebody comes into my house in the middle of the night (as OP says he believed had happened) then I believe they loose any rights and whatever happens to them is their own fault.
That has not come from any official connected with the investigation. It's merely tabloid tittle-tattle at the moment and should be dismissed as such.
Totally agree. Now imagine being in South Africa, being wealthy and also a double amputee.