if i couldnt open a toilet, i would put my shoulder behind it. Even if it were used to bash a lock off, why would it be covered in blood?
OP seems to have destroyed the crime scene by moving the body.
Although I doubt his version of events, given he has no lower legs, it's reasonable to think he may not be able to shove a door with a shoulder like a nondisabled person would, and would need to use the bat instead to smash the panels.
The toilet would no doubt be drenched in blood, so the bat could have easily becomed bloodied.
If his story is true, its entirely plausible that when he went into the bathroom he didn't know what to expect.
And it was only once in there and he saw the open window and heard noise in the toilet that, in a split second, he both came to the conclusion he did, and fired.
It seems entirely plausible that by the time he became sure it was an intruder he then had that call to make on the spot, in the blink of an eye.
Which in my mind is a plausible explanation as to why he didn't wake Reeva.
– During the early morning hours of 14 Feb. 2013 I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised someone was in the bathroom.
- I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There were no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetics legs on, I have mobility on my stumps.
– I believed someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on. I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed.
– On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
In other words, according to his words, he already established for himself what to expect BEFORE he got to the bathroom/toilet - i.e. that an intruder (or someone other the people ke knew should be in the house) was in his house: " ... I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised someone was in the bathroom ... I believed someone had entered my house ... On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed."
He had already made the call for an intruder being in the house long before he made the call to find that it was/was not Reeva. So it's not really accurate to say that it's plausible "that when he went into the bathroom he didn't know what to expect". From his affivadit, once he heard a noise coming form the bathroom, he had already established in his mind that there was an intruder in the house long before he got to the bathroom. And to be fair, it's a reasonable assumption to make at that very moment on time. However, following on from those reasonable assumptions, his subsequent actions regarding Reeva makes his rest of story problematic.
Regarding him shooting when he knew there were no windows for escape. To me, that supports his story, insomuch as if he knew there were no windows, he would know any would be intruder would have to pass himself and Reeva to escape.
Something that would pose more of a threat than if any intruder could flee via the toilet.
Bib: In his affivdavit, OP made no mention of windows being in the toilet, only in the bathroom and that this window was open. And there is no record as far I know that says otherwise. So yes, I agree with your bib, but only to an extent: We are going by what OP says was going on in his mind and what he was thinking at the time. And indeed what he is saying is plausible, given the crime-ridden state South Africa is in.
But from his own affidavit, OP already decided before he got to the bathroom there was a supposed intruder in his house. And he also assumed that it wasn't Reeva by failing to make an atttempt to locate where she was (despite his claims for "wanting to protect her" and "being deeply in love with her"). The prosecution would/could therefore argue that, as it was, this was an assumption that OP was making (regardless of what he was thinking/thought in the heat of the moment, regardless of the high crime rate in SA, and their plausibilty), and an assumption that incidentally turned out to be very, very wrong. Regardless of what OP thought and felt at the time, his assumptions turned out not to be fact in the end.
To mitigate this, the defence's case would be a lot stronger if OP had made some/any attempt (however miminal) to establish where Reeva was and that she was safe/OK. If OP had shown some attempt to secure Reeva's safety first and foremost (and as best he could under the circumstances), then the defence would be in a better place to show (based on OP's words) that there is reasonable doubt for premediated murder. But according to his affidavit, OP didn't do this for Reeva or even attempt to show that he did. And that's where the defence has a serious problem.
Reeva would certainly have turned the bathroom light on if she had got out of bed to go to the loo. That's not the kind of thing an intruder would do. P's story is nonsensical.
Reeva would certainly have turned the bathroom light on if she had got out of bed to go to the loo. That's not the kind of thing an intruder would do. P's story is nonsensical.
Usually if a story seems odd , smells odd , sounds odd and has multiple oddities in the telling it is odd .
Oscars story has so many odd points that gathered up together is one big huge oddity IMO .
A story that doesnt ring true very often isnt true .
Reeva would certainly have turned the bathroom light on if she had got out of bed to go to the loo. That's not the kind of thing an intruder would do. P's story is nonsensical.
Depends how dark it is.... OPS testimony to "pitch blackness" seems odd to me... that's exactly the situation where anyone would flick a light on.
There's the possibility he used her phone as a torch.
This was first mentioned a week ago and I had assumed that it was just rumours and 2+2 making 5. But if there's nothing in it, it's strange that the Mail is featuring it now.
Depends how dark it is.... OPS testimony to "pitch blackness" seems odd to me... that's exactly the situation where anyone would flick a light on.
OP says the bedroom was in pitch black as he had drawn down the blinds or curtains earlier. I don't think he has said anything about how was the light in the bathroom.
if i couldnt open a toilet, i would put my shoulder behind it. Even if it were used to bash a lock off, why would it be covered in blood?
OP seems to have destroyed the crime scene by moving the body.
Even if she had been left in situ, the crime scene would have been compromised by the paramedics.
The Forensic and crime scene people are used to not having a pristine scene to analyse. I would imagine by the time they have done their work they will know the sequence of shots, injuries and blood loss and trail.
Depends how dark it is.... OPS testimony to "pitch blackness" seems odd to me... that's exactly the situation where anyone would flick a light on.
There's the possibility he used her phone as a torch.
I don't think he mentioned doing that and surely if she had used it to light her way to the bathroom, going by the position of the balcony to the bed, he would have seen the light. If he had picked up the phone, he would have had to go to her side to get it and would surely have seen she wasn't there. None of it makes sense as to why the phone was in the toilet.
Bib: In his affivdavit, OP made no mention of windows being in the toilet, only in the bathroom and that this window was open.
And if you were a compulsive type person, making sure you had your gun and bat and terrified of a death threat, and knowing there were ladders left around, would you leave a bathroom window open. I'm not saying you could not make an error, but usually you would explain why you didn't do a house check before going to sleep. If that's how you think and that's what the danger level is.
Although I doubt his version of events, given he has no lower legs, it's reasonable to think he may not be able to shove a door with a shoulder like a nondisabled person would, and would need to use the bat instead to smash the panels.
By his own account he had already put his legs on at that point. And he has a very well-developed muscular upper body, I would imagine that he is stronger than the average person.
.... the defence's case would be a lot stronger if OP had made some/any attempt (however miminal) to establish where Reeva was and that she was safe/OK. If OP had shown some attempt to secure Reeva's safety first and foremost (and as best he could under the circumstances), then the defence would be in a better place to show (based on OP's words) that there is reasonable doubt for premediated murder. But according to his affidavit, OP didn't do this for Reeva or even attempt to show that he did. And that's where the defence has a serious problem.
Not to mention the fact that IF he had made even the most minimal attempt, she would still be alive and we wouldn't even be discussing it.
Regarding him shooting when he knew there were no windows for escape. To me, that supports his story, insomuch as if he knew there were no windows, he would know any would be intruder would have to pass himself and Reeva to escape.
What about the window the intruder supposedly entered through, ie the bathroom window? The one he thought had a ladder outside?
And if you were a compulsive type person, making sure you had your gun and bat and terrified of a death threat, and knowing there were ladders left around, would you leave a bathroom window open. I'm not saying you could not make an error, but usually you would explain why you didn't do a house check before going to sleep. If that's how you think and that's what the danger level is.
Even the prosecuting lawyer pointed out and asked in court why, if OP was so scared of intruders, did he have the balcony windows open.
I admit his story sounds unbelievable, but I want to believe it so badly! It's hard to imagine someone so heroic and distinguished throw away his life because of some fame hungry model he barely knew. He could have so easily replaced her with another.
I admit his story sounds unbelievable, but I want to believe it so badly! It's hard to imagine someone so heroic and distinguished throw away his life because of some fame hungry model he barely knew. He could have so easily replaced her with another.
of course, the light would have been on in the bathroom.
No one goes to the toilet in the pitch dark and STILL locks the cubicle door!
Who actually goes to the toilet in the pitch dark anyway?
She would have known he wasnt in the bed, and would have no reason not to put a light on - it cannot be seen from the bedroom anyway.
Me, for one.
I don't like the light on 'cos it wakes me up. I can get out of bed, use the toilet and be back in bed before my brain has properly come to terms with being awake!
I admit his story sounds unbelievable, but I want to believe it so badly! It's hard to imagine someone so heroic and distinguished throw away his life because of some fame hungry model he barely knew. He could have so easily replaced her with another.
Wrong on so many levels. What a lovely attitude you have.
Edit: after viewing previous posts it seems it's jealousy...I don't know what's worse being nasty or being jealous.
I admit his story sounds unbelievable, but I want to believe it so badly! It's hard to imagine someone so heroic and distinguished throw away his life because of some fame hungry model he barely knew. He could have so easily replaced her with another.
Even the prosecuting lawyer pointed out and asked in court why, if OP was so scared of intruders, did he have the balcony windows open.
Yes. Or have an alarm system.
He was putting himself and his girlfriend at risk by leaving windows open if he thought there was such a risk. The two don't go together - being so frightened and failing to take minimal precautions.
Again not that people don't make mistakes but he never mentioned it. Was thinking we fell asleep with the window open.
I admit his story sounds unbelievable, but I want to believe it so badly! It's hard to imagine someone so heroic and distinguished throw away his life because of some fame hungry model he barely knew. He could have so easily replaced her with another.
I admit his story sounds unbelievable, but I want to believe it so badly! It's hard to imagine someone so heroic and distinguished throw away his life because of some fame hungry model he barely knew. He could have so easily replaced her with another.
My goodness. Are you sure you really wanted to say that?
I admit his story sounds unbelievable, but I want to believe it so badly! It's hard to imagine someone so heroic and distinguished throw away his life because of some fame hungry model he barely knew. He could have so easily replaced her with another.
I suspect this comment will haunt you for the rest of your time on DS, as people are unlikely to forget it.
Comments
I didn't see that, but wasn't it one of the police claims later contradicted in the bail hearing?
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/ali-clarke-truth-is-getting-in-the-way-of-a-bad-story/story-e6freabc-1226584577652
Although I doubt his version of events, given he has no lower legs, it's reasonable to think he may not be able to shove a door with a shoulder like a nondisabled person would, and would need to use the bat instead to smash the panels.
The toilet would no doubt be drenched in blood, so the bat could have easily becomed bloodied.
Bib: But according to his affidavit, he said:
– During the early morning hours of 14 Feb. 2013 I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised someone was in the bathroom.
- I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There were no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetics legs on, I have mobility on my stumps.
– I believed someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on. I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed.
– On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
In other words, according to his words, he already established for himself what to expect BEFORE he got to the bathroom/toilet - i.e. that an intruder (or someone other the people ke knew should be in the house) was in his house: " ... I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised someone was in the bathroom ... I believed someone had entered my house ... On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed."
He had already made the call for an intruder being in the house long before he made the call to find that it was/was not Reeva. So it's not really accurate to say that it's plausible "that when he went into the bathroom he didn't know what to expect". From his affivadit, once he heard a noise coming form the bathroom, he had already established in his mind that there was an intruder in the house long before he got to the bathroom. And to be fair, it's a reasonable assumption to make at that very moment on time. However, following on from those reasonable assumptions, his subsequent actions regarding Reeva makes his rest of story problematic.
Bib: In his affivdavit, OP made no mention of windows being in the toilet, only in the bathroom and that this window was open. And there is no record as far I know that says otherwise. So yes, I agree with your bib, but only to an extent: We are going by what OP says was going on in his mind and what he was thinking at the time. And indeed what he is saying is plausible, given the crime-ridden state South Africa is in.
But from his own affidavit, OP already decided before he got to the bathroom there was a supposed intruder in his house. And he also assumed that it wasn't Reeva by failing to make an atttempt to locate where she was (despite his claims for "wanting to protect her" and "being deeply in love with her"). The prosecution would/could therefore argue that, as it was, this was an assumption that OP was making (regardless of what he was thinking/thought in the heat of the moment, regardless of the high crime rate in SA, and their plausibilty), and an assumption that incidentally turned out to be very, very wrong. Regardless of what OP thought and felt at the time, his assumptions turned out not to be fact in the end.
To mitigate this, the defence's case would be a lot stronger if OP had made some/any attempt (however miminal) to establish where Reeva was and that she was safe/OK. If OP had shown some attempt to secure Reeva's safety first and foremost (and as best he could under the circumstances), then the defence would be in a better place to show (based on OP's words) that there is reasonable doubt for premediated murder. But according to his affidavit, OP didn't do this for Reeva or even attempt to show that he did. And that's where the defence has a serious problem.
Usually if a story seems odd , smells odd , sounds odd and has multiple oddities in the telling it is odd .
Oscars story has so many odd points that gathered up together is one big huge oddity IMO .
A story that doesnt ring true very often isnt true .
Depends how dark it is.... OPS testimony to "pitch blackness" seems odd to me... that's exactly the situation where anyone would flick a light on.
There's the possibility he used her phone as a torch.
This was first mentioned a week ago and I had assumed that it was just rumours and 2+2 making 5. But if there's nothing in it, it's strange that the Mail is featuring it now.
OP says the bedroom was in pitch black as he had drawn down the blinds or curtains earlier. I don't think he has said anything about how was the light in the bathroom.
Even if she had been left in situ, the crime scene would have been compromised by the paramedics.
The Forensic and crime scene people are used to not having a pristine scene to analyse. I would imagine by the time they have done their work they will know the sequence of shots, injuries and blood loss and trail.
I don't think he mentioned doing that and surely if she had used it to light her way to the bathroom, going by the position of the balcony to the bed, he would have seen the light. If he had picked up the phone, he would have had to go to her side to get it and would surely have seen she wasn't there. None of it makes sense as to why the phone was in the toilet.
And if you were a compulsive type person, making sure you had your gun and bat and terrified of a death threat, and knowing there were ladders left around, would you leave a bathroom window open. I'm not saying you could not make an error, but usually you would explain why you didn't do a house check before going to sleep. If that's how you think and that's what the danger level is.
By his own account he had already put his legs on at that point. And he has a very well-developed muscular upper body, I would imagine that he is stronger than the average person.
Not to mention the fact that IF he had made even the most minimal attempt, she would still be alive and we wouldn't even be discussing it.
Or just lift aside the curtain or blind that he claims he had just closed.
What about the window the intruder supposedly entered through, ie the bathroom window? The one he thought had a ladder outside?
Even the prosecuting lawyer pointed out and asked in court why, if OP was so scared of intruders, did he have the balcony windows open.
No one goes to the toilet in the pitch dark and STILL locks the cubicle door!
Who actually goes to the toilet in the pitch dark anyway?
She would have known he wasnt in the bed, and would have no reason not to put a light on - it cannot be seen from the bedroom anyway.
Wow. That's pretty harsh...
Me, for one.
I don't like the light on 'cos it wakes me up. I can get out of bed, use the toilet and be back in bed before my brain has properly come to terms with being awake!
Wrong on so many levels. What a lovely attitude you have.
Edit: after viewing previous posts it seems it's jealousy...I don't know what's worse being nasty or being jealous.
:eek::eek::eek:
Yes. Or have an alarm system.
He was putting himself and his girlfriend at risk by leaving windows open if he thought there was such a risk. The two don't go together - being so frightened and failing to take minimal precautions.
Again not that people don't make mistakes but he never mentioned it. Was thinking we fell asleep with the window open.
Good grief.
My goodness. Are you sure you really wanted to say that?
I suspect this comment will haunt you for the rest of your time on DS, as people are unlikely to forget it.