His guilt or innocence is for a judge to decide when in possession of the full facts regarding the shooting. Anything else is just rumour and speculation based on various press and police reports of variable debatable accuracy.
He has admitted himself that he killed her! The fact that he may have or may not have thought it was someone else, does not alter the fact that he shot someone, several times, who he couldn't even see, who may or may not have even been armed, through a shut toilet door.
How can he not be guilty of murder. A lot of what has been quoted on here is direct from the the trial itself, not just speculation and rumour.
I think the 2 mobile phones will be key.
Reeva's phone was found in the bathroom - not the toilet.
Surely the prosecution know whether she attempted to phone anyone (even if they don't have the records).
Lots of other less than believable events all adding up together does make you raise your eyebrows.
OP sleeping on opposide side of the bed that night
Moving his gun to his new side but not the holster
Both waking up at 3am but not communicating to each other - him going to the balcony and her the toilet - no words exchanged?
Someone so concerned for their safety that a noise in the bathroom triggers such a fatal series of events - but they sleep with the patio and bathroom windows open?
The phone situation
The locked toilet door
OP putting himself in a more vulnerable sitaution despite feeling "scared"
A couple of nights ago I woke up in early hours as a police helicopter with searchlight was right overhead, obviously looking for someone. Put my head right out of the window to see if I could see anyone, my husband seemed to be asleep.
Put the wind up myself a bit, thinking there was a criminal running around our back gardens.
I heard the bathroom window open, although the light wasn't on, which made me jump. I looked inside to the bed to check that it was my husband who'd got up, which it was.
From which I inferred this:
Your first instinct when you hear a noise in a room adjoining your bedroom at night is that it's the person you're with. And to make sure, you look at the bed.
Pistorious had to walk past the bed to get from the balcony to the bathroom. There is no question that he would have checked, because that action would have told him immediately if his life was in danger or not. That's the thing you want to know: am I in danger.
The idea of picking up a weapon, & going attacking someone in the bathroom, without checking it's not your partner is just a nonsense.
I guess you don't have a loaded gun under your bed just in case something happens. Or if you do have a weapon, its probably of the baseball bat variety, where it would be difficult to kill someone by accident.
So now it wasn't an act of rage but coldly premeditated, fully thinking ahead to his defence? Yet the defence is so preposterous you scoff at it freely, so why did he bother with this method at all, instead of finding a method that would give him a much better chance of getting away with it?
To repeat myself yet again, pre-meditation does not mean thinking and planning something for weeks in advance.
Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.[1] State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation." In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated murder is usually defined as one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely than manslaughter or other types of murder - often with the death penalty or a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
OP was not standing around with a gun in his hand which he then discharged in the heat of the moment. He heard a noise, went to fetch the gun, went looking for the 'intruder' and then shot for times into a tiny cramped room - serious injury or death was more or less guaranteed - hence the charge of pre-meditated murder. He made the considered decision to go and get his gun and then shot four times through the door of the toilet. That isn't spur of the moment manslaughter.
Pistorius's statement says that it was only when he got back to the bed and noticed that Reeva wasn't there that it occurred to him that it might have been her in the bathroom. How possible is it that she was shot three times without making any kind of sound (that he could hear) that indicated it was her - or even that it was a woman - in the toilet?
It is possible that the first bullet fired immediately rendered her unconscious. Or perhaps she was already unconscious, having collapsed in the toilet for some reason? Her collapsing might have been the noise that Pistorius thought was the intruder. Someone padding around for a quick trip to the loo in a tiled bathroom would not otherwise make much noise I would have thought.
If she had been sleepwalking, would she have been unlikely to wake up?
Hmm.. the defence claim she had an empty bladder, so their contention is that she peed...
A couple of nights ago I woke up in early hours as a police helicopter with searchlight was right overhead, obviously looking for someone. Put my head right out of the window to see if I could see anyone, my husband seemed to be asleep.
Put the wind up myself a bit, thinking there was a criminal running around our back gardens.
I heard the bathroom window open, although the light wasn't on, which made me jump. I looked inside to the bed to check that it was my husband who'd got up, which it was.
From which I inferred this:
Your first instinct when you hear a noise in a room adjoining your bedroom at night is that it's the person you're with. And to make sure, you look at the bed.
Pistorious had to walk past the bed to get from the balcony to the bathroom. There is no question that he would have checked, because that action would have told him immediately if his life was in danger or not. That's the thing you want to know: am I in danger.
The idea of picking up a weapon, & going attacking someone in the bathroom, without checking it's not your partner is just a nonsense.
Quite. You know your partner is in the house and it doesn't occur to you to stop for a second to think that it could be that person who has gone to the toilet and that's what you heard?
You go and get your gun from under the bed you dont even check your partner is there and wake them So then you shout back for your partner to call the police, but are not in any way confused when they dont shout back or stir during any time.
I guess you don't have a loaded gun under your bed just in case something happens. Or if you do have a weapon, its probably of the baseball bat variety, where it would be difficult to kill someone by accident.
The weapon has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't try and attack the person in the bathroom without checking it's my husband first!
And I'm fairly vulnerable - I'm 5 ft 4 & weigh 7 & 1/2 stone & I'd have no chance against a big burglar...
Just the points made previosuly in the post. She seemingly took her phone on a 3am trip to the toilet - why and why did it end up in the bathroom under the shower mat and not in the toilet?
Just the points made previosuly in the post. She seemingly took her phone on a 3am trip to the toilet - why and why did it end up in the bathroom under the shower mat and not in the toilet?
Did she!? I didn't know that. Crikey
Who found it under the shower mat?
Did she!? I didn't know that. Crikey
Who found it under the shower mat?
The police found 2 phones under the shower mat - one was hers I think. The defence explained it away by saying she must've dropped it. I'm doubting myself now - will see if I can find where I read it!
ETA It's correct. The prosecuter is querying her mobile found on/under shower mat.
The weapon has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't try and attack the person in the bathroom without checking it's my husband first!
And I'm fairly vulnerable - I'm 5 ft 4 & weigh 7 & 1/2 stone & I'd have no chance against a big burglar...
I wouldn't either! But then its relatively ''easy'' to pick up a loaded gun and fire it. Dosen't take much physical effort or time and you can do a lot of damage if you panic. Didn't he ''accidently'' fire one in a restaurant a few months ago?
He kept the gun there so he must have been ready to fire it at any moment that he felt threatened?
The police found 2 phones under the shower mat - one was hers I think. The defence explained it away by saying she must've dropped it. I'm doubting myself now - will see if I can find where I read it!
ETA It's correct. The prosecuter is querying her mobile found on/under shower mat.
How would a person drop a phone under a shower mat?
What do you think, pistorius hid it there,or one of his friends thinking it might be incriminating?
By the time the police arrived, Oscar's brother, best mate, his lawyer and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all were there. Who knows how much "tidying up" might have been done. There's no way we can presume that the "scene" wasn't interfered with before the police got a chance to contaminate it themselves :rolleyes:
Exactly.
Everyone seems to be treating OP's timeline as gospel. He said they went to bed at 10pm - but more than one neighbour heard raised voices and gunshots and one said the lights were on, so why is everone so convinced that Reeva got up to go to the loo? They could have been up and she could have gone to the loo and then an argument broke out.
How would a person drop a phone under a shower mat?
What do you think, pistorius hid it there,or one of his friends thinking it might be incriminating?
To be fair, there was a lot of movement in the bathroom after the shooting: oscar batting down the door, dragging her body out etc. The phone may have been elsewhere in the bathroom to start off with and then got under the mat with all the other movement going on.
Some people take their phone everywhere with them. However, they don't then hide their phone under a shower mat while they pee.
Why would you need to take it to the toilet? And if you took it to the toilet because you wanted your phone, wouldn't you keep it with you in the toilet?
Why would you need to take it to the toilet? And if you took it to the toilet because you wanted your phone, wouldn't you keep it with you in the toilet?
The mystery of the phone was covered by the afternoon crew on this thread.
Ha ha, I should not spend all day here as the arguments just go round in circles.
the more I read about this story and about the leaks from the police force, the police man suddenly being charged with murder the more I think that no matter what the outcome we will never be sure about what happened. If he is found guilty we will always wonder was he framed for something that was just an accident and if he is found not guilty we will wonder did he get away with murder.
Thanks to the mess the police have already made of the investigation I dont think we will ever be sure of the result of a trial.
I think the one thing we can be certain of is that this was not an accident, meaning an accidental death. If you recklessly fire through a door without knowing or even trying to find out who or what is on the other side, and someone dies, the death is not accidental.
It's just a matter now of what exact crime is he actually guilty of, and if the police investigation has been so bungled or subtle political pressure applied, that he will get off on technicalities etc.
Comments
He has admitted himself that he killed her! The fact that he may have or may not have thought it was someone else, does not alter the fact that he shot someone, several times, who he couldn't even see, who may or may not have even been armed, through a shut toilet door.
How can he not be guilty of murder. A lot of what has been quoted on here is direct from the the trial itself, not just speculation and rumour.
Good points
What do you mean by the phone situation
I guess you don't have a loaded gun under your bed just in case something happens. Or if you do have a weapon, its probably of the baseball bat variety, where it would be difficult to kill someone by accident.
To repeat myself yet again, pre-meditation does not mean thinking and planning something for weeks in advance.
OP was not standing around with a gun in his hand which he then discharged in the heat of the moment. He heard a noise, went to fetch the gun, went looking for the 'intruder' and then shot for times into a tiny cramped room - serious injury or death was more or less guaranteed - hence the charge of pre-meditated murder. He made the considered decision to go and get his gun and then shot four times through the door of the toilet. That isn't spur of the moment manslaughter.
Hmm.. the defence claim she had an empty bladder, so their contention is that she peed...
I really think people are misunderstanding pre-meditation.
Quite. You know your partner is in the house and it doesn't occur to you to stop for a second to think that it could be that person who has gone to the toilet and that's what you heard?
You go and get your gun from under the bed you dont even check your partner is there and wake them So then you shout back for your partner to call the police, but are not in any way confused when they dont shout back or stir during any time.
The weapon has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't try and attack the person in the bathroom without checking it's my husband first!
And I'm fairly vulnerable - I'm 5 ft 4 & weigh 7 & 1/2 stone & I'd have no chance against a big burglar...
Just the points made previosuly in the post. She seemingly took her phone on a 3am trip to the toilet - why and why did it end up in the bathroom under the shower mat and not in the toilet?
And he consciously went into the area he thought there was danger when he was at his most vulnerable - without his prosthetics.
Did she!? I didn't know that. Crikey
Who found it under the shower mat?
The police found 2 phones under the shower mat - one was hers I think. The defence explained it away by saying she must've dropped it. I'm doubting myself now - will see if I can find where I read it!
ETA It's correct. The prosecuter is querying her mobile found on/under shower mat.
I wouldn't either! But then its relatively ''easy'' to pick up a loaded gun and fire it. Dosen't take much physical effort or time and you can do a lot of damage if you panic. Didn't he ''accidently'' fire one in a restaurant a few months ago?
He kept the gun there so he must have been ready to fire it at any moment that he felt threatened?
I imagine detectives detected it there. They're really thorough.
That is odd. When I've gone to the loo in the middle of the night, I have never taken my phone with me.
Wouldn't you normally just go to the loo and go back to bed and try to go to sleep as quickly as possible?
Some people take their phone everywhere with them. However, they don't then hide their phone under a shower mat while they pee.
How would a person drop a phone under a shower mat?
What do you think, pistorius hid it there,or one of his friends thinking it might be incriminating?
And shouting from a balcony :cool:
Exactly.
Everyone seems to be treating OP's timeline as gospel. He said they went to bed at 10pm - but more than one neighbour heard raised voices and gunshots and one said the lights were on, so why is everone so convinced that Reeva got up to go to the loo? They could have been up and she could have gone to the loo and then an argument broke out.
To be fair, there was a lot of movement in the bathroom after the shooting: oscar batting down the door, dragging her body out etc. The phone may have been elsewhere in the bathroom to start off with and then got under the mat with all the other movement going on.
Why would you need to take it to the toilet? And if you took it to the toilet because you wanted your phone, wouldn't you keep it with you in the toilet?
Yes, I know.
That's why I said:
"If there had been an intruder they wouldn't have known that, and could have been looking for an alternative exit to flee the scene."
In answer to the question of if there had been an intruder, why would he have backed himself into a corner.
The mystery of the phone was covered by the afternoon crew on this thread.
Ha ha, I should not spend all day here as the arguments just go round in circles.
I think the one thing we can be certain of is that this was not an accident, meaning an accidental death. If you recklessly fire through a door without knowing or even trying to find out who or what is on the other side, and someone dies, the death is not accidental.
It's just a matter now of what exact crime is he actually guilty of, and if the police investigation has been so bungled or subtle political pressure applied, that he will get off on technicalities etc.