I didn't know there was info about who slept on which side, so I might be off asking this.
OP said his gun was underneath the bed. Was this on the right hand side (where Reeva slept) or the left hand side where the slippers etc are (where he slept)? From this 3D graphics , the gun holster is underneath on the left-hand side (the side where Reeva's slippers are, the side where she wasn't sleeping on), so I'm assuming that's where the gun was. The bedroom was "pitch dark". He was able to locate his gun ok and his prosthetics in the darkness, but he couldn't see that Reeva wasn't in bed, even though he would have walked twice pass that area?
I understand how it would be easy for him to locate the gun and his prosthetics in the dark due to the familiarity of where he approximately kept them.
But from this 3D graphics, which is different from the other one, shows the gun on the right-side next to the balcony window (i.e. the side where Reeva was supposed to be slepping on). It also shows where Reeva's slippers are, the side she is said not to be sleeping on. As @BellaRosa said, how can he possibly miss Reeva's non-sleeping body, if she was supposed to be sleeping on the side next to the balcony?
Either the graphics are wrong or OP and Reeva slept on different sides. Or some human being somewhere ain't telling the truth. Or I'm getting something wrong here.
Hope this helps clear the murky waters?
Police Pistorius would have had to pass his bed to walk to the bathroom, suggesting he would have noticed whether or not Steenkamp was in bed. A holster for the gun was found on the same side of the bed as Steenkamp's overnight bag and slippers.
Defence Pistorius had a shoulder problem so he slept on the other side of the bed than usual. Steenkamp had spent the previous night there too, and had slept on her usual side that night.
OP was next to the window but he could have easily have woken Reeva by tapping her awake as he went past her.
In that picture I'm assuming it's his legs that are placed at the front of the bed. Is this the way it was? If so, I don't know why he didn't put them on first. He passes them on the way. It would also have given him more time to check if Reeva was in the bed, and he would have been better prepared to tackle an intruder if there had been one. This whole thing stinks.
I imagine it's useful in a hot country where air-conditioning doesn't extend to the balcony?
But why bring it into the house? Who's going to steal a fan from a balcony in a gated community?
"He brought it in because it was plugged into the socket and it would be easier to move the fan than keep plugging it in and unplugging it." says the defence.
Police Pistorius would have had to pass his bed to walk to the bathroom, suggesting he would have noticed whether or not Steenkamp was in bed. A holster for the gun was found on the same side of the bed as Steenkamp's overnight bag and slippers.
Defence Pistorius had a shoulder problem so he slept on the other side of the bed than usual. Steenkamp had spent the previous night there too, and had slept on her usual side that night.
OK. So he slept on the side away from the balcony but near the bathroom, and Reeva slept on the other side.
Also from the video you posted (thank you:)), OP got his gun underneath the bed on the side he was sleeping on.
If this is correct, I can why you're puzzled as to how he couldn't possibly notice Reeva wasn't in bed, first when he went to the balcony and then when he passed again to get his gun.
OK he could argue that it was "pitch dark" which is fine. So how comes, according to his affidavit, he was able to notice that Reeva wasn't in bed after he shot into the toilet but before he switched on the lights when he went back into the bedroom. It was still pitch dark at this point. I mean, he was as near to the bed when he closed the balcony doors as he was when he went back into the bedroom and "reached the bed" and realising she wasn't in it. And yet he didn't see her until it was too late.
In that picture I'm assuming it's his legs that are placed at the front of the bed. Is this the way it was? If so, I don't know why he didn't put them on first. He passes them on the way. It would also have given him more time to check if Reeva was in the bed, and he would have been better prepared to tackle an intruder if there had been one. This whole thing stinks.
Yes that was them. I know if it was me I would want to be in my legs just in case.
OK he could argue that it was "pitch dark" which is fine. So how comes, according to his affidavit, he was able to notice that Reeva wasn't in bed after he shot into the toilet but before he switched on the lights when he went back into the bedroom. It was still pitch dark at this point. I mean, he was as near to the bed when he closed the balcony doors as he was when he went back into the bedroom and "reached the bed" and realising she wasn't in it. And yet he didn't see her until it was too late.
It doesn't make sense:(
No, it doesn't .... And it wasn't "pitch dark" when he got up anyway: it was only "pitch dark" after he had pulled the curtains and blinds. So he says.
I'm afraid I blame my mother. These are the programmes I watched regularly on TV whilst growing up:
A Man Called Ironside
Z Cars
Dixon of Dock Green
Quincey
Cannon
The Sreets of San Francisco
Columbo
Kojak
The Expert (about forensic science helping to solve crimes)
Starskey & Hutch
Hawaii Five-O
Cagney & Lacey
Any Agatha Christie dramatisations.
So, I just can't help picking at stories/statements if they don't feel or look right.
I have to say, I'm not sure how much of a sleuth one has to be to smell a rat in this particular situation.
No, it doesn't .... And it wasn't "pitch dark" when he got up anyway: it was only "pitch dark" after he had pulled the curtains and blinds. So he says.
The issue I have with the 'pitch dark' comment is that regardless of how dark it was or wasnt. Reeva was sleeping on an unfamilar side of the bed in a room that she was not familar with (she had only been with OP for 4 months, its not like its her own room or they were together for years). So would she not have needed to pop a light on to navigate her way to the bath room?
Hence possibly disturbing her bed partner (who was also sleeping on an unfamilar side of the bed)???
No, it doesn't .... And it wasn't "pitch dark" when he got up anyway: it was only "pitch dark" after he had pulled the curtains and blinds. So he says.
The issue I have with the 'pitch dark' comment is that regardless of how dark it was or wasnt. Reeva was sleeping on an unfamilar side of the bed in a room that she was not familar with (she had only been with OP for 4 months, its not like its her own room or they were together for years). So would she not have needed to pop a light on to navigate her way to the bath room?
Hence possibly disturbing her bed partner (who was also sleeping on an unfamilar side of the bed)???
I just thought also re: this 'pitch dark' thing.
Another thing that doesn't make sense. As LaVieEnRose said, it was 'pitch dark' only after he closed the curtains and blinds. So when Reeva got up to got to the loo, and she didn't put on the light, there may have been enough light for her to see where she was going. If there was enough light for her to see her way to the loo, there must be enough light for OP to see that Reeva wasn't in bed as he walked to the balcony.
But it's still plausible to believe that he genuinely didn't see her or take note of her presence before he closed the curtains/blinds, and genuinely assumed that she was still in bed. It was only after he closed the curtians/blinds that he heard a sound from the bathroom in the pitch dark, and believed it was an intruder because he's thinking/assuming Reeva's in bed.
Is it definite that a bullet was found in the toilet bowl ? Was it a bullet (not a cartridge) ? If this is the case, it would be assumed it missed the victim and somehow ended up in the toilet bowl.
Yes, it does beggar belief. On the other hand, if she was cowering trying to hide from an angry partner, then she would no doubt leave the light off.
I don't think it's anything anyone can say with certainty.
Looking at the floor plan, it's a fairly direct route from the side of the bed she was on to the short corridor to the bathroom.
If the window there was letting in some ambient light, it could have been enough to then see as far as the toilet. I don't know if we know the toilet light was on or not?
It's also true that if you wake in the night, putting lights on will make it more difficult to go back to sleep, so common advise there is not to put the light on unless you have to, for that reason.
But it's still plausible to believe that he genuinely didn't see her or take note of her presence before he closed the curtains/blinds, and genuinely assumed that she was still in bed. It was only after he closed the curtians/blinds that he heard a sound from the bathroom in the pitch dark, and believed it was an intruder because he's thinking/assuming Reeva's in bed.
You don't just assume someone is somewhere when you intend to go and shoot someone possibly killing them, Pistorius' story is complete nonsense.
I don't think it's anything anyone can say with certainty.
Looking at the floor plan, it's a fairly direct route from the side of the bed she was on to the short corridor to the bathroom.
If the window there was letting in some ambient light, it could have been enough to then see as far as the toilet. I don't know if we know the toilet light was on or not?
It's also true that if you wake in the night, putting lights on will make it more difficult to go back to sleep, so common advise there is not to put the light on unless you have to, for that reason.
I totally get that bit, its just it wasnt her home, she may not have been familar with it and so it would be normal to pop a light on (even a bedside lamp)
Hopefully, there will be some concrete evidence that will point to the truth. Perhaps records will show the times that Reeva was using the iPad, for instance, which will either conflict or agree with P's version of the timing of events.
I totally get that bit, its just it wasnt her home, she may not have been familar with it and so it would be normal to pop a light on (even a bedside lamp)
If they were arguing and he battered her with a cricket bat as is alleged, I doubt she was thinking about putting the light on. Escaping with her life was her only thought. Locking herself in the bathroom was her escape. Sadly she was trapped.
An accidental shooting of a supposed intruder doesn't make sense. Why not shout I have a gun get out of my house or I'll use it - then she'd have said Oscar it's me. End of panic.
No he shot at (the door/her) 4 times. You'd only shoot once to defend yourself from someone who was behind a locked door.
The facts will all come out in the end but it doesn't look good and the only other person who was there is silenced so cannot speak for herself.
What about the window the intruder supposedly entered through, ie the bathroom window? The one he thought had a ladder outside?
I'm talking about the toilet.
The point is that OP was in the bathroom, outside the toilet.
If there was an intruder in the toilet, had there been a window in there, they could have gotten out via the toilet, without confronting OP.
But there wasn't, so any escape route meant going out via the bathroom, arguably making it more if a threat for anyone between an intruder and an exit.
Glad there is somebody else, I was begining to think I was a bit odd, cause I never put the light on when I nip to the loo in the middle of the night.:)
Nope - you're not on your own.
I wonder if, having now mentioned the thing about it being easier to get back to sleep, some people will in the future and go "oh yeah!"?
Comments
Hope this helps clear the murky waters?
Police Pistorius would have had to pass his bed to walk to the bathroom, suggesting he would have noticed whether or not Steenkamp was in bed. A holster for the gun was found on the same side of the bed as Steenkamp's overnight bag and slippers.
Defence Pistorius had a shoulder problem so he slept on the other side of the bed than usual. Steenkamp had spent the previous night there too, and had slept on her usual side that night.
I knew there was something missing, but I just couldn't recall the title. Yep, Jim Rockford!
Oh Gosh, I just remembered, we used to watch Magnum PI too.
And that one with Robert Wagner - Hart to Hart.
I bet there were more........
I imagine it's useful in a hot country where air-conditioning doesn't extend to the balcony?
"He brought it in because it was plugged into the socket and it would be easier to move the fan than keep plugging it in and unplugging it." says the defence.
"Good point." says Auntie Climax.
OK. So he slept on the side away from the balcony but near the bathroom, and Reeva slept on the other side.
Also from the video you posted (thank you:)), OP got his gun underneath the bed on the side he was sleeping on.
If this is correct, I can why you're puzzled as to how he couldn't possibly notice Reeva wasn't in bed, first when he went to the balcony and then when he passed again to get his gun.
OK he could argue that it was "pitch dark" which is fine. So how comes, according to his affidavit, he was able to notice that Reeva wasn't in bed after he shot into the toilet but before he switched on the lights when he went back into the bedroom. It was still pitch dark at this point. I mean, he was as near to the bed when he closed the balcony doors as he was when he went back into the bedroom and "reached the bed" and realising she wasn't in it. And yet he didn't see her until it was too late.
It doesn't make sense:(
Yes that was them. I know if it was me I would want to be in my legs just in case.
...will anybody in SA who hasn't recently killed somebody please stand up, please stand up.
No, it doesn't .... And it wasn't "pitch dark" when he got up anyway: it was only "pitch dark" after he had pulled the curtains and blinds. So he says.
You didn't watch The Dukes of Hazzard? :eek:
The issue I have with the 'pitch dark' comment is that regardless of how dark it was or wasnt. Reeva was sleeping on an unfamilar side of the bed in a room that she was not familar with (she had only been with OP for 4 months, its not like its her own room or they were together for years). So would she not have needed to pop a light on to navigate her way to the bath room?
Hence possibly disturbing her bed partner (who was also sleeping on an unfamilar side of the bed)???
Oh, of course! I missed that bit.
It's worse than I thought.
@Marvin's Mum: Those are interesting points.
I just thought also re: this 'pitch dark' thing.
Another thing that doesn't make sense. As LaVieEnRose said, it was 'pitch dark' only after he closed the curtains and blinds. So when Reeva got up to got to the loo, and she didn't put on the light, there may have been enough light for her to see where she was going. If there was enough light for her to see her way to the loo, there must be enough light for OP to see that Reeva wasn't in bed as he walked to the balcony.
But it's still plausible to believe that he genuinely didn't see her or take note of her presence before he closed the curtains/blinds, and genuinely assumed that she was still in bed. It was only after he closed the curtians/blinds that he heard a sound from the bathroom in the pitch dark, and believed it was an intruder because he's thinking/assuming Reeva's in bed.
Botha didn't kill anyone. He is being tried for attempted murder.
If Columbo's taken, I'll be Monk ... "He's the guy!"
I don't think it's anything anyone can say with certainty.
Looking at the floor plan, it's a fairly direct route from the side of the bed she was on to the short corridor to the bathroom.
If the window there was letting in some ambient light, it could have been enough to then see as far as the toilet. I don't know if we know the toilet light was on or not?
It's also true that if you wake in the night, putting lights on will make it more difficult to go back to sleep, so common advise there is not to put the light on unless you have to, for that reason.
I totally get that bit, its just it wasnt her home, she may not have been familar with it and so it would be normal to pop a light on (even a bedside lamp)
The prosecuter, the brother, the suspect who next?
If they were arguing and he battered her with a cricket bat as is alleged, I doubt she was thinking about putting the light on. Escaping with her life was her only thought. Locking herself in the bathroom was her escape. Sadly she was trapped.
An accidental shooting of a supposed intruder doesn't make sense. Why not shout I have a gun get out of my house or I'll use it - then she'd have said Oscar it's me. End of panic.
No he shot at (the door/her) 4 times. You'd only shoot once to defend yourself from someone who was behind a locked door.
The facts will all come out in the end but it doesn't look good and the only other person who was there is silenced so cannot speak for herself.
It's all very very sad.
I'm talking about the toilet.
The point is that OP was in the bathroom, outside the toilet.
If there was an intruder in the toilet, had there been a window in there, they could have gotten out via the toilet, without confronting OP.
But there wasn't, so any escape route meant going out via the bathroom, arguably making it more if a threat for anyone between an intruder and an exit.
Nope - you're not on your own.
I wonder if, having now mentioned the thing about it being easier to get back to sleep, some people will in the future and go "oh yeah!"?