"Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps"
" felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps."
In his statement Oscar says that he travelled on his stumps, no mention of being on his bum
"Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps"
" felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps."
No there isn't,so why mention he moved backwards out of the bathroom then? Is he stating he "walked" out backwards on his stumps or that he pulled himself along on his way out?
No there isn't,so why mention he moved backwards out of the bathroom then? Is he stating he "walked" out backwards on his stumps or that he pulled himself along on his way out?
Gina, I've edited my post...referring to a link that was posted here earlier)
A man trying to break down a toilet door during a domestic doesn't sound plausible? I bet it happens many times a night in the UK alone.
As for 4, that was just based on the neighbour's limited testimony that we've heard so far (obviously we don't know anything like their full story yet) that there were two "shooting events" 17 minutes apart.
Not with a gun, into such a small room, I'm guessing.
That would have to be some testimony to have that much detail of what was happening in another house, that distance away.
But the two options I posted are pretty much the two possibilities.
Sorry if this has already been pointed out ( I cant keep up with the thread though I did read a lot) but to me it gets more damning.
If you look at the graphic and the descrition, without his legs OP has to move backwards.
I have always thought it was incredibly stupid (and therefore unlikely) that he would go down the corridor to the bathroom, but mainly because he was "blind" to what was in the room. Now it appears he would have had to go back first and of course will need to use both hands meaning that even if he is holding his gun while "crab walking" he will be very slow to respond. I just think anyone heading down that corridor backwards using their hands for locomotion would feel so vulnerable they would come to their senses and stay in the bedroom. They would then cover the passageway with the gun and shout for Reeva to wake up and call the police etc.
This sounds like he made it up afterward. It seems much more likely that when he proceeded down the passageway he didn't feel in any way threatened and knew exactly what was in the bathroom.
Also as pointed out in the comments below this piece he would have had to look across the bed to feel for the gun.
Except he has clearly stated he has mobility on his stumps. So no crab walking necessary.
I expect The National Post will be sued for their "In his own words Pistorius: How I killed Reeva" because frankly they are not remotely his own words which had they even bothered to read his affadavit they would have known and I expect they do know. However, his own words don't make the tragedy salacious enough so they embellish it with cartoon images and fictitious text.
They can't even accurately report legal documents in the public domain so who knows what other fiction they'll come up with to shift copy.
No there isn't,so why mention he moved backwards out of the bathroom then? Is he stating he "walked" out backwards on his stumps or that he pulled himself along on his way out?
He mentioned he moved backwards because he is bolstering the impression he was terrified of being shot by whoever was behind the door - if he thought he was in mortal danger he wouldn't turn his back on a potential location of fire. It doesn't imply to me anything about having to move on his bottom!
Except he has clearly stated he has mobility on his stumps. So no crab walking necessary.
I expect The National Post will be sued for their "In his own words Pistorius: How I killed Reeva" because frankly they are not remotely his own words which had they even bothered to read his affadavit they would have known and I expect they do know. However, his own words don't make the tragedy salacious enough so they embellish it with cartoon images and fictitious text.
They can't even accurately report legal documents in the public domain so who knows what other fiction they'll come up with to shift copy.
Pathetic.
I thought he'd mentioned he'd walked on his stumps that's why I sought out his statement. Can't always believe what you read.
The cubicle door should tell us a lot. On a person standing, a female, the areas hit, the head, the hand and the knee are some distance apart; the hand in the normal down position, would be about 2 feet below the head, and the knee about 18 inches or more below the hand. That would mean that the bullets, if shot through the door, should be about at least 12 inches apart, one below the other vertically; which would be an unusual way to aim a gun to shoot through a door.
If the door has the 3 shots more or less together, or only a few inches apart, the trajectory of the bullets through the door might not match the target areas hit.
It is unlikely she was actually seated on the toilet itself when hit, as this would tighten the angle of delivery to a very tight diagonal trajectory. Her head, hand and knee would be closer together, allowing for the bullets to be closer when passing through the door, but he would have to be aiming at more than 45 degrees to the perpendicular to achieve this.
When shooting, unable to aim at a target, through a closed door, you might expect the bullets to be shot close together perpendicular to the door, which, if someone is standing in an area behind the door, the largest target area is the torso. So, you would expect hits or one hit to the torso area.
Also, you would expect the bullets to be clumped together with less than 6 inches in vertical height between them.
If this is how the door is, the chances of him achieving the hits on the victim are very slim, practically impossible.
Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that 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.
Thanks Gina, that's what I thought originally, until someone pointed out to me how unbelievable it was that he went back from the bathroom to get the gun, all without noticing she wasn't there.
Then I saw the more detailed schematic posted recently.
Looking at that, if he threw the covers duvet away from the window side, towards Reeva, and then was on the floor on his backside / stumps, and it was pitch dark, and he was level with the bed, rather than looking down on it, then it seems entirely plausible that he wouldn't have notices her absence, especially if he was then focused on the direction he heard a noise from.
He mentioned he moved backwards because he is bolstering the impression he was terrified of being shot by whoever was behind the door - if he thought he was in mortal danger he wouldn't turn his back on a potential location of fire. It doesn't imply to me anything about having to move on his bottom!
I wish I could see him and his level of "mobility", walking on his stumps.
In the same way though, why wouldn't he put his legs on, or indeed still have them on if he knew his target WAS Reeva?
This is why the ballistics evidence will be very important. It should be (for any competent forensic service) a relatively simple exercise to work out the bullet trajectories through door and work out angle and height of fire. This will prove or disprove his assertion that he fired without legs. The way the prosecution is being handled seems so incredibly inept that I do worry.
In the same way though, why wouldn't he put his legs on, or indeed still have them on if he knew his target WAS Reeva?
Exactly. If he knew it was Reeva, he would have known the imminent threat to him was far less than it would be from an armed intruder, and therefore time to put them on.
And thinking about it generally, if it had been a heated argument, between him and a Reeva, would he really need a gun in the first place?
It will be interesting to see if forensics show up any other signs of physical abuse, as going from shouting to shooting with nothing in between doesn't ring entirely true, but who knows.
Not with a gun, into such a small room, I'm guessing.
That would have to be some testimony to have that much detail of what was happening in another house, that distance away.
But the two options I posted are pretty much the two possibilities.
Does 1 really sound much more likely than 2?
Gunshots and shouting travel pretty far, and neighbours initially said (although again we obviously don't have full testimony) that there had been shouting from the residence previously.
Your two options aren't the only possibilities, they're strawmen weighted to the presumption of honesty of OP's testimony.
Definitely not from that comic. What is it called? National Post?
National Enquirer by any other name.
Possibly not the best choice of comparison, given that the National Enquirer is currently going through something of an investigative journalism renaissance, and was on the John Edwards story 18 months before anyone else.
The way the prosecution is being handled seems so incredibly inept that I do worry.
I'm thinking the combination of acknowledged inept handling, false sensationalist media reporting and the status of the man himself will make a fair trial unlikely.
Whatever - imo whether he knowingly killed her or not - he is probably going to pay a terrible mental price for this. If it was me and even if it was an 'accident' I don't think I could live with myself.
I feel that OP keeps saying "he was too scared to turn the lights on" Is an excuse to say he did not know Reeva was not in bed. He has then covered himself.
He mentions being scared a few times in his statement, I find that a bit ott.
Surely one of the first things you do is turn the lights on especially as he had a gun in his hand.
Possibly not the best choice of comparison, given that the National Enquirer is currently going through something of an investigative journalism renaissance, and was on the John Edwards story 18 months before anyone else.
Really? That's why it markets itself as
Celebrity gossip, scandals, and the latest from Hollywood. Enquiring minds want to know!
The cubicle door should tell us a lot. On a person standing, a female, the areas hit, the head, the hand and the knee are some distance apart; the hand in the normal down position, would be about 2 feet below the head, and the knee about 18 inches or more below the hand. That would mean that the bullets, if shot through the door, should be about at least 12 inches apart, one below the other vertically; which would be an unusual way to aim a gun to shoot through a door.
If the door has the 3 shots more or less together, or only a few inches apart, the trajectory of the bullets through the door might not match the target areas hit.
It is unlikely she was actually seated on the toilet itself when hit, as this would tighten the angle of delivery to a very tight diagonal trajectory. Her head, hand and knee would be closer together, allowing for the bullets to be closer when passing through the door, but he would have to be aiming at more than 45 degrees to the perpendicular to achieve this.
When shooting, unable to aim at a target, through a closed door, you might expect the bullets to be shot close together perpendicular to the door, which, if someone is standing in an area behind the door, the largest target area is the torso. So, you would expect hits or one hit to the torso area.
Also, you would expect the bullets to be clumped together with less than 6 inches in vertical height between them.
If this is how the door is, the chances of him achieving the hits on the victim are very slim, practically impossible.
Even without those calculations, there is no way she could be hit in the right side of the head from the distance and angle he claims to have fired from if she was sitting on the loo. She must have been facing the toilet bowl or side on - not fatal to his case as defense would argue she was cowering from his shouted warning of an intruder.
As you should know, because I've 'met' you on threads similar to this before Mr P - sometimes the concept of Occam's Razor is accepted or denied at will.
The issue isn't whether there was or wasn't an actual real life intruder- the issue is whether he thought there was ... and whether thinking there was kickstarted his ingrained fear causing a set of events.
His excuse is either flawed because in the cold light of day, with logic and reason present and correct is is hard to understand how someone could act so illogically and unreasonably, because he is now trying to lay finer feelings over a period of gung-ho-ness where feelings didn't enter into the equation or it's flawed because its a construct.
I just hope there is enough actual physical evidence at trial to rule one or the other in or out.
To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether his story is believed or not for a guilty verdict. Made up or true, the force he used was not reasonable in the circumstances.
If his story is accepted, it should be no more than mitigation.
I'd imagine that if you wore prosthetics, you'd keep them in the same place so could put them on without looking, in the same way some people can with slippers by the bed.
Yes, prosthetics is the correct term. It also helps to know how its spelt. Thanks:)
I understand what you're saying.
I'm not implying that he is lying. In fact, his story is very plausible. It's plausible for him to make the assumption, as he does with his prosthetics being at the end of the bed, that Reeva would be lying in bed rather than be in the bathroom.
I just can't get my head round his claim that "he wanted to protect himself and Reeva" and that "he and Reeva were deeply in love", and yet he did not make any attempt to ensure Reeva, the woman he's in love with, was safe BEFORE he "screamed at the [supposed] intruder" to get out of his house, shot at said 'intruder' and THEN (and only then) told Reeva to phone the police. He only remembered his loved one, the one he wanted to protect, after the event.
And that's probably why there are a few people who think it was premediated murder because:
- he seems to have decided in his head or by instinct that whoever was in the bathroom/toilet was an 'intruder' regardless;
- he didn't seem to make an assumption that it may be Reeva - who was sleeping with him, with whom he was deeply in love and wanted to protect - by making sure he knew where she was and/or she was safe and ok)
- upon seemingly deciding that whoever was in the bathroom/toilet was an intruder by seemingly ruling out that Reeva could be the one in there, he fired not one bullet, but four into a toilet cubicle that did not have any windows through which the intruder could make escape from.
- whoever was in there had a high probability of being killed and that by firing four shots, it could be argued that OP wanted the intruder dead. After all, the person is only intruder and such a person takes their own life into their own hands. But sadly OP seemingly decided that the person was an intruder before securing the safety of his loved one first.
Whichever way I look at it, his actions seem to belie his words/testimony. If I am to assume that his story is true (and as I say, I can believe with he is saying. I've lived in a similar country in Africa when I was a child, so lots of what he says I can believe), his words don't measure up to what he did that early morning.
ETA: Did he intend to kill Reeva? No, probably not. But by not ensuring where she was and if she was safe and ok, he intended to kill (or even maybe hurt or frighten) whoever was in the bathroom by firing four shots into the windowless toilet because he assumed they were an intruder. The fact that they weren't shouldn't belie what he actually did re: his actions.
I'm thinking the combination of acknowledged inept handling, false sensationalist media reporting and the status of the man himself will make a fair trial unlikely.
You have to remember that it's been the defense's aim to make the prosecution case look inept, whether that's objectively true or not. It's Defense Lawyer 101, and is packed by an entire PR team (and why not, that's exactly their job).
All the niggles they picked out have their own contexts, and you could possibly do the same to virtually *any* crime investigation.
Comments
"Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps"
" felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps."
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/19/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-affadavit/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-defence-statement
No there isn't,so why mention he moved backwards out of the bathroom then? Is he stating he "walked" out backwards on his stumps or that he pulled himself along on his way out?
Gina, I've edited my post...referring to a link that was posted here earlier)
Not with a gun, into such a small room, I'm guessing.
That would have to be some testimony to have that much detail of what was happening in another house, that distance away.
But the two options I posted are pretty much the two possibilities.
Does 1 really sound much more likely than 2?
I expect The National Post will be sued for their "In his own words Pistorius: How I killed Reeva" because frankly they are not remotely his own words which had they even bothered to read his affadavit they would have known and I expect they do know. However, his own words don't make the tragedy salacious enough so they embellish it with cartoon images and fictitious text.
They can't even accurately report legal documents in the public domain so who knows what other fiction they'll come up with to shift copy.
Pathetic.
Yes, thank you Bella. This is very moving.
He mentioned he moved backwards because he is bolstering the impression he was terrified of being shot by whoever was behind the door - if he thought he was in mortal danger he wouldn't turn his back on a potential location of fire. It doesn't imply to me anything about having to move on his bottom!
I thought he'd mentioned he'd walked on his stumps that's why I sought out his statement. Can't always believe what you read.
In the same way though, why wouldn't he put his legs on, or indeed still have them on if he knew his target WAS Reeva?
If the door has the 3 shots more or less together, or only a few inches apart, the trajectory of the bullets through the door might not match the target areas hit.
It is unlikely she was actually seated on the toilet itself when hit, as this would tighten the angle of delivery to a very tight diagonal trajectory. Her head, hand and knee would be closer together, allowing for the bullets to be closer when passing through the door, but he would have to be aiming at more than 45 degrees to the perpendicular to achieve this.
When shooting, unable to aim at a target, through a closed door, you might expect the bullets to be shot close together perpendicular to the door, which, if someone is standing in an area behind the door, the largest target area is the torso. So, you would expect hits or one hit to the torso area.
Also, you would expect the bullets to be clumped together with less than 6 inches in vertical height between them.
If this is how the door is, the chances of him achieving the hits on the victim are very slim, practically impossible.
Thanks Gina, that's what I thought originally, until someone pointed out to me how unbelievable it was that he went back from the bathroom to get the gun, all without noticing she wasn't there.
Then I saw the more detailed schematic posted recently.
Looking at that, if he threw the covers duvet away from the window side, towards Reeva, and then was on the floor on his backside / stumps, and it was pitch dark, and he was level with the bed, rather than looking down on it, then it seems entirely plausible that he wouldn't have notices her absence, especially if he was then focused on the direction he heard a noise from.
I wish I could see him and his level of "mobility", walking on his stumps.
This is why the ballistics evidence will be very important. It should be (for any competent forensic service) a relatively simple exercise to work out the bullet trajectories through door and work out angle and height of fire. This will prove or disprove his assertion that he fired without legs. The way the prosecution is being handled seems so incredibly inept that I do worry.
Exactly. If he knew it was Reeva, he would have known the imminent threat to him was far less than it would be from an armed intruder, and therefore time to put them on.
And thinking about it generally, if it had been a heated argument, between him and a Reeva, would he really need a gun in the first place?
It will be interesting to see if forensics show up any other signs of physical abuse, as going from shouting to shooting with nothing in between doesn't ring entirely true, but who knows.
Definitely not from that comic. What is it called? National Post?
National Enquirer by any other name.
Gunshots and shouting travel pretty far, and neighbours initially said (although again we obviously don't have full testimony) that there had been shouting from the residence previously.
Your two options aren't the only possibilities, they're strawmen weighted to the presumption of honesty of OP's testimony.
Possibly not the best choice of comparison, given that the National Enquirer is currently going through something of an investigative journalism renaissance, and was on the John Edwards story 18 months before anyone else.
Whatever - imo whether he knowingly killed her or not - he is probably going to pay a terrible mental price for this. If it was me and even if it was an 'accident' I don't think I could live with myself.
He mentions being scared a few times in his statement, I find that a bit ott.
Surely one of the first things you do is turn the lights on especially as he had a gun in his hand.
Really? That's why it markets itself as
Even without those calculations, there is no way she could be hit in the right side of the head from the distance and angle he claims to have fired from if she was sitting on the loo. She must have been facing the toilet bowl or side on - not fatal to his case as defense would argue she was cowering from his shouted warning of an intruder.
Its only my opinion as I havent seen Oscar use his stumps , but I feel he wouldnt walk on his stumps he would use his knees .
His stumps dont look to me like they would carry his weight, plus most amoutees are told to preserve the stump as its vital it doent break down
http://www.businessinsider.com/oscar-pistorius-does-not-wear-his-blade-prosthetics-away-from-the-track-2013-2
To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether his story is believed or not for a guilty verdict. Made up or true, the force he used was not reasonable in the circumstances.
If his story is accepted, it should be no more than mitigation.
Yes, prosthetics is the correct term. It also helps to know how its spelt. Thanks:)
I understand what you're saying.
I'm not implying that he is lying. In fact, his story is very plausible. It's plausible for him to make the assumption, as he does with his prosthetics being at the end of the bed, that Reeva would be lying in bed rather than be in the bathroom.
I just can't get my head round his claim that "he wanted to protect himself and Reeva" and that "he and Reeva were deeply in love", and yet he did not make any attempt to ensure Reeva, the woman he's in love with, was safe BEFORE he "screamed at the [supposed] intruder" to get out of his house, shot at said 'intruder' and THEN (and only then) told Reeva to phone the police. He only remembered his loved one, the one he wanted to protect, after the event.
And that's probably why there are a few people who think it was premediated murder because:
- he seems to have decided in his head or by instinct that whoever was in the bathroom/toilet was an 'intruder' regardless;
- he didn't seem to make an assumption that it may be Reeva - who was sleeping with him, with whom he was deeply in love and wanted to protect - by making sure he knew where she was and/or she was safe and ok)
- upon seemingly deciding that whoever was in the bathroom/toilet was an intruder by seemingly ruling out that Reeva could be the one in there, he fired not one bullet, but four into a toilet cubicle that did not have any windows through which the intruder could make escape from.
- whoever was in there had a high probability of being killed and that by firing four shots, it could be argued that OP wanted the intruder dead. After all, the person is only intruder and such a person takes their own life into their own hands. But sadly OP seemingly decided that the person was an intruder before securing the safety of his loved one first.
Whichever way I look at it, his actions seem to belie his words/testimony. If I am to assume that his story is true (and as I say, I can believe with he is saying. I've lived in a similar country in Africa when I was a child, so lots of what he says I can believe), his words don't measure up to what he did that early morning.
ETA: Did he intend to kill Reeva? No, probably not. But by not ensuring where she was and if she was safe and ok, he intended to kill (or even maybe hurt or frighten) whoever was in the bathroom by firing four shots into the windowless toilet because he assumed they were an intruder. The fact that they weren't shouldn't belie what he actually did re: his actions.
You have to remember that it's been the defense's aim to make the prosecution case look inept, whether that's objectively true or not. It's Defense Lawyer 101, and is packed by an entire PR team (and why not, that's exactly their job).
All the niggles they picked out have their own contexts, and you could possibly do the same to virtually *any* crime investigation.