I think what OP said is basically the truth, that he shot Reeva in the belief that she was an intruder. I believe that he saw someone through the open door of the toilet cubicle, which was either open already to some extent, or he kicked it open. He shot a shadowy indistinct figure in the knee, hand and then the head, presuming the person to be an intruder. At the time he fired the shots he was so convinced in his own mind that he was shooting an intruder, it did not occur to him at the time that it might be Reeva. I think there was just enough light to discern the shape of someone, but not enough to determine who it was at the time he fired the bullets.
I find it very hard to believe that he could have secured 3 hits firing blind through a closed door. Also, the location of the hits: to the knee, to immobilise a potential assailant. Then, the hand to disarm someone who might have a gun (he might have seen something in the figure's hand and assumed it was a gun: this may have been Reeva holding her mobile phone.) Then, the head shot to kill.
The placement of the bullets is too precise to be achieved by firing blindly through a door, even in a very confined space.
You might expect most of the bullets to miss, and if any hit, it would most like hit the largest area, the torso. The knee, the hand, and even the head, are relatively small targets and require aiming at to hit.
What I think happened is that after discharging the bullets, he looked inside the cubicle and found that it was Reeva, probably already dead.
This looks very bad for him, because he shot her through the open door.
So, he makes up the story about firing through a closed and locked door, to eliminate in his own mind the thought that he should have been able to tell who the person was that he shot at.
He fires extra bullets through the door, and then disposes of the evidence of the extra bullets and cartridges by flushing them down the toilet.
So, essentially he is telling the truth, but since he is now stuck with the firing through the door story, if it is demonstrated in court that this was not possible, he might be convicted of murder because his testimony will be discredited, even if, had he told the truth, he might have been acquited, especially if he believed at the time that the figure was armed with a pistol, himself mistaking Reeva holding her mobile phone for an intruder holding a gun. Self-defence is your perception that you are in immediate danger.
It would be ironic if he is unfairly convicted because he wanted to change the details of what happened and is discredited, when in truth he always mistook her for an intruder and is completely telling the truth about that and his apprehension at the time.
The 2 sets of bullets being fired 17 minutes apart has an explanation if he decided to fire extra bullets to give the story that he shot through a closed and locked door.
A lot of interesting points in that. I wonder if bullets fired through the door would've come out and embedded themselves in the wall? If so then there would be evidence in the toilet walls that more than four bullets were fired.
A lot of interesting points in that. I wonder if bullets fired through the door would've come out and embedded themselves in the wall? If so then there would be evidence in the toilet walls that more than four bullets were fired.
I dont know a lot about guns but I would have thought that bullets fired through a door into a room would have caused some sort of damage. Also Reeva was still alive when he carried her downstairs, I really dont thing he would have wasted time with the extra bullets while there was a chance her life could be saved.
Dont think we have been told anything about the key yet.
I still think it's strange that any modern interior door these days has a physical key anyway. Most have a built-in lock that you can flip open or closed.
I still think it's strange that any modern interior door these days has a physical key anyway. Most have a built-in lock that you can flip open or closed.
I guess it depends how old the house is and what is the norm in South Africa. The internal doors in our house all have keys.
As far as I know there has been no official announcement connecting the bat to the injuries. It was more tabloid tittle-tattle printed prior to the bail hearing. It seems she was killed with the bullets alone.
The 2 sets of bullets being fired 17 minutes apart has an explanation if he decided to fire extra bullets to give the story that he shot through a closed and locked door.
Yes, presumably the crime scene experts will investigate if any of the shots hit Reeva directly without having passed through the door.
What utter nonsense. The Daily Mail didn't even use their usual excuse of 'a source close to the family said...'. There's not even a mention of any source for the story. It's just printed as a fact.
If this is true he is gone. However I would like to hear it from somewhere more reliable than the Daily Mail
And I find it very hard to believe some mention of it wasn't made at the bail hearing. It's just evil crap from the Mail, recycling tittle-tattle from even before the bail hearing started.
If this is true he is gone. However I would like to hear it from somewhere more reliable than the Daily Mail
well I did wonder, if they've made it up then shame on them but seems quite a statement to make i.e the family have been told by police. I don't know if it's fictional then surely both parties could sue (I know that will probably be the least of worries right now)
well I did wonder, if they've made it up then shame on them but seems quite a statement to make i.e the family have been told by police. I don't know if it's fictional then surely both parties could sue (I know that will probably be the least of worries right now)
The other thing that would make me doubt this story is that her father said in the last couple of days that if OP is lying then he must suffer but that if he is telling the truth that someday he would forgive him. Surely he wouldnt come out with a statement like that if he already knows that OP hit her with a cricket bat before he shot her.
The other thing that would make me doubt this story is that her father said in the last couple of days that if OP is lying then he must suffer but that if he is telling the truth that someday he would forgive him. Surely he wouldnt come out with a statement like that if he already knows that OP hit her with a cricket bat before he shot her.
Yes, the same thought occurred to me too. The Mail is an utterly vile rag that's not even fit for use as toilet paper.
Personally I think it would be crass of him to contact his victim's relatives. They have never met him before, and the first contact would be him saying sorry for killing your daughter? If she was my daughter, I wouldn't even want to look at him on the telly let alone hear from him.
One of the conditions of his bail:
- He must have no contact with the family of Reeva Steenkamp or any prosecution witnesses.
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.
There would be lots of blood in the bedroom from when Oscar moved her body, so that would cover any blood trail.
What if he is basically telling the truth but has changed certain details to make it seem better for him ?
If he is telling the truth, I think this is a strong possibility. While people like to think that if you're innocent, your story will hold up in court, we know of many cases of mistaken incaceration and even death penalty for people who were actually innocent.
Even if he is telling the truth about thinking she was an intruder, I think it's possible he made up stuff (like the locked bedroom door, shouting at her to call the police, being very concerned for her safety etc.) to boost his case. The stuff he made up is probably stuff that can't be disproven (how would anyone apart from him know if he shouted at her about the police? or if the bedroom door was locked or unlocked?).
Another thing, people shouldn't assume that just because something didn't come up in court, that it doesn't exist. The bail hearing was held so soon after the crime, that none of the investigations were anywhere near complete.
For example, people are saying there is no motive. However, all we know is that no motive was presented at the bail hearing. Perhaps they do know a motive but didn't present it because Pistorius not getting bail isn't the prosecution's primary aim: they wanted to corner him into making a statement. More likely, they haven't been able to establish a motive at such an early stage without seeing all the phone records (e.g. text messages to Reeva's phone, emails on her ipad etc.) or interviewing lots of people that knew Reeva.
While Botha was blamed for not obtaining some things (like phone records), he is not operating alone, he is reliant on others to produce that information quickly (e.g. the phone companies in SA). If SA is anything like some Asian countries, people work very slowly and it is hard to get officials to change that work ethic for one case.
- He must have no contact with the family of Reeva Steenkamp or any prosecution witnesses.
Some articles today have quotes from Reeva's uncle saying they received flowers and a card from the Pistorius family after he'd received bail. The uncle felt the timing inappropriate.
Comments
A lot of interesting points in that. I wonder if bullets fired through the door would've come out and embedded themselves in the wall? If so then there would be evidence in the toilet walls that more than four bullets were fired.
It looks like four were fired through the toilet door.
Three spent cartridges were found in the bathroom, and one was found in the hallway connecting the bedroom to the bathroom.
Could any more shots have been fired?
I dont know a lot about guns but I would have thought that bullets fired through a door into a room would have caused some sort of damage. Also Reeva was still alive when he carried her downstairs, I really dont thing he would have wasted time with the extra bullets while there was a chance her life could be saved.
Did Reeva have a key to get out, or was she locked in?
And was one of the spent cartridges found by the defence in the toilet related to the four known gunshots?
Dont think we have been told anything about the key yet.
I still think it's strange that any modern interior door these days has a physical key anyway. Most have a built-in lock that you can flip open or closed.
I guess it depends how old the house is and what is the norm in South Africa. The internal doors in our house all have keys.
From any plans I have seen the bathroom is part of the bedroom so no she would not have had to unlock the bedroom door to go to the bathroom
OK, cheers
just saw this, apologies if already posted and tittle tattle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283507/Horrified-family-told-Pistorius-DID-beat-Reeva-cricket-bat-shown-extensive-head-injuries.html
Yes, presumably the crime scene experts will investigate if any of the shots hit Reeva directly without having passed through the door.
If this is true he is gone. However I would like to hear it from somewhere more reliable than the Daily Mail
What utter nonsense. The Daily Mail didn't even use their usual excuse of 'a source close to the family said...'. There's not even a mention of any source for the story. It's just printed as a fact.
And I find it very hard to believe some mention of it wasn't made at the bail hearing. It's just evil crap from the Mail, recycling tittle-tattle from even before the bail hearing started.
well I did wonder, if they've made it up then shame on them but seems quite a statement to make i.e the family have been told by police. I don't know if it's fictional then surely both parties could sue
How has he evaded deportation for so long?
The other thing that would make me doubt this story is that her father said in the last couple of days that if OP is lying then he must suffer but that if he is telling the truth that someday he would forgive him. Surely he wouldnt come out with a statement like that if he already knows that OP hit her with a cricket bat before he shot her.
Yes, the same thought occurred to me too. The Mail is an utterly vile rag that's not even fit for use as toilet paper.
One of the conditions of his bail:
- He must have no contact with the family of Reeva Steenkamp or any prosecution witnesses.
I have.
There would be lots of blood in the bedroom from when Oscar moved her body, so that would cover any blood trail.
If he is telling the truth, I think this is a strong possibility. While people like to think that if you're innocent, your story will hold up in court, we know of many cases of mistaken incaceration and even death penalty for people who were actually innocent.
Even if he is telling the truth about thinking she was an intruder, I think it's possible he made up stuff (like the locked bedroom door, shouting at her to call the police, being very concerned for her safety etc.) to boost his case. The stuff he made up is probably stuff that can't be disproven (how would anyone apart from him know if he shouted at her about the police? or if the bedroom door was locked or unlocked?).
For example, people are saying there is no motive. However, all we know is that no motive was presented at the bail hearing. Perhaps they do know a motive but didn't present it because Pistorius not getting bail isn't the prosecution's primary aim: they wanted to corner him into making a statement. More likely, they haven't been able to establish a motive at such an early stage without seeing all the phone records (e.g. text messages to Reeva's phone, emails on her ipad etc.) or interviewing lots of people that knew Reeva.
While Botha was blamed for not obtaining some things (like phone records), he is not operating alone, he is reliant on others to produce that information quickly (e.g. the phone companies in SA). If SA is anything like some Asian countries, people work very slowly and it is hard to get officials to change that work ethic for one case.
Some articles today have quotes from Reeva's uncle saying they received flowers and a card from the Pistorius family after he'd received bail. The uncle felt the timing inappropriate.