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.
Apart from Reeva's parents' interview posted yesterday, I don't hear much about Reeva. What a sad, sad interview. Her 'Jo'burg Dad' is right: Reeva's voice needs to be heard and it isn't much atm:( By all accounts it sounds like she was a really lovely woman.
That is really sad. He shouldn't blame himself, she was 29 and he couldn't be expected to collect his adult 'children' from boyfriend's houses at that age.
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.
And the weight of Reeva would have been apparent, imo.
There was no context or circumstance. There was no burglar, nor had there ever been, so there was no reason to believe a noise was a burglar that needed shooting.
You dont seem to consider the possibility that he is not telling the truth.
The circumstances are that their are two people in a room, and a noise is made in the en suite. Quite likely it is the other person from the bedroom.
Sorry, but to say there was no context or circumstance is utterly ridiculous.
No situation exists without context and circumstance.
And it is utterly absurd to state that there was no reason to think there was a burglar based on the fact that we now know there was no burglar.
There's every possibility that he's not telling the truth, we just don't know.
Apart from Reeva's parents' interview posted yesterday, I don't hear much about Reeva. What a sad, sad interview. Her 'Jo'burg Dad' is right: Reeva's voice needs to be heard and it isn't much atm:( By all accounts it sounds like she was a really lovely woman.
Agree.
It is all about OP at the moment but Reeva is the victim here I have no sympathy for OP tbh.
"Police said there was a possibility that he did beat model girlfriend with a cricket bat, which is currently being examined by forensic team for evidence"
Which at least would make sense, if a bit less titillating.
Because the whole situation isn't sensational and tragic enough with just the known facts - it has to be titillated up for media circulation.
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.
This graphic is very useful, and yes, I hadn't realized he moves backwards. He is very vulnerable doing this as his gun hand is on the floor while he is moving and his vision awkward. No to me this makes no sense whatsoever either.
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.
Totally agree with you. I have said before. Why did he not put his legs on ? He must be quite speedy at doing them.
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.
One could also argue that he did put his legs on too.
How many times do you need a dangerous burglar in the bathroom?
I'm not disputing that his actions were wrong at all. I'm just positing that the brain is a funny old thing at times and that if you are nervous of something happening to the degree he seemed to be then a noise where you don't expect a noise to be could make logic and reason fly away and leave the only explanation for it as the thing you are most nervous of.
Then logic and reason come back and you are left in the middle of a tragedy.
Well there still hasn't been a dangerous burglar in the bathroom.
Every form of logic, and common sense suggests that Reeva was the obvious person to be there, and he had every chance to establish that.
His excuse is massively flawed, even if true, which many doubt.
There are more obvious reasons to what happened.
There has to be a murder conviction out of this, or it sets a precedent that anyone can shoot any noise they claim to hear.
That is really sad. He shouldn't blame himself, she was 29 and he couldn't be expected to collect his adult 'children' from boyfriend's houses at that age.
Ah, but this is crime-ridden South Africa, so I understand how protective he would feel, especially where girls/women are concerned. Hell bells, even my dad gets on my case when I'm out and it's getting dark. And that's in here in London.
But yes, you're right. He shouldn't feel guilty and many would not expect him to collect his adult children from places one would expect them to safe and secure.
This graphic is very useful, and yes, I hadn't realized he moves backwards. He is very vulnerable doing this as his gun hand is on the floor while he is moving and his vision awkward. No to me this makes no sense whatsoever either.
Undoing my own argument here, but I like to be fair. Some people BTL on the article claim he can walk on his stumps, so he could have gone forwards..
This graphic is very useful, and yes, I hadn't realized he moves backwards. He is very vulnerable doing this as his gun hand is on the floor while he is moving and his vision awkward. No to me this makes no sense whatsoever either.
He said he has mobility on his stumps though, never did he say he dragged himself along. More sensational reporting and probably pretty easy to determine just how he gets around without his prosthetics on.
There has to be a murder conviction out of this, or it sets a precedent that anyone can shoot any noise they claim to hear.
DP, I'm assuming you're ex police? If this event had happened in the UK would he have been granted bail, in your opinion? (sorry if you've already stated the answer elsewhere).
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.
Thats very interesting .It also makes him lower than some previouely thought .He is basically on his bum so any shot would be upwards IMO .
Yes , he looks vulnerable and I cant imagine why he would back down a corridor where he thought a danger lay . Why would he do that ?
Sorry, but to say there was no context or circumstance is utterly ridiculous.
No situation exists without context and circumstance.
And it is utterly absurd to state that there was no reason to think there was a burglar based on the fact that we now know there was no burglar.
There's every possibility that he's not telling the truth, we just don't know.
The context and circumstances are what were in place, not what he claims to have believed.
We never know for certain that many criminals lie, but they do.
The context, and circumstances are taken into account, and a verdict brought on the basis of that, not an assumption they are telling the truth, and unless you can prove otherwise, they are innocent.
He isn't innocent, and should be convicted of murder, even with his story.
It's not justification for violence IMO, but that doesn't mean they aren't genuinely scared.
I'm not sure what you mean by a fear that someone gay may molest them. If you just mean that a gay person might make a pass, it's hardly the same thing. If you mean that the person is genuinely concerned about genuine molestation (gay or otherwise) then it's a much different sort of fear. It's still not on the same page as worrying about an armed intruder in your home, especially when the armed intruders in SA have a reputation for rape as well as murder.
Equally, believing he could have been genuinely scared of an intruder doesn't mean you approve of him shooting an actual intruder if there had been one.
Similarly, his actual level of risk living in a gated community isn't the issue. It's how scared he was of an intruder, and there is plenty of evidence that this is something that had concerned him before he even got together with this girlfriend.
I'll repeat, I don't think paranoia is an acceptable excuse for killing someone, even if they are an intruder unless it really is self-defence, but it's a hugely different crime if a paranoid person over-reacts and kills an intruder (or someone they think to be one) who they think may have a gun of their own, compared with knowingly killing your girlfriend who you know isn't a physical threat.
I've no idea what he was thinking, but none of the mooted actions are logical. Knowingly shooting his girlfriend would have been an illogical and irrational thing to do, so I'm not sure why people want to rule out accidentally shooting on the grounds of it not being logical.
The whole thing is a mess, and a disaster for everyone involved, and there has been so many police blunders and spreading of mis-information (lies) about the case, with a lot more evidence still to be analysed and presented. There is a strange fascination on DS with collating (partial) facts to construct a conclusive case against all manner of sometimes innocent and sometimes guilty parties.
Agree with all of that. With the bit in bold, I was thinking of something similar.
Having arrived at the point where OP was stood in front of the toilet door with a gun, under which circumstance would he be more likely to shoot:
1. He knew his unarmed girlfriend, whom he loved, was on the other side?
2. He thought there was an armed intruder, trapped, on the other side?
I would have thought 2.
So if 1. is the least likely, although obviously not impossible option, it reminds me of the Sherlock quote:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
He said he has mobility on his stumps though, never did he say he dragged himself along. More sensational reporting and probably pretty easy to determine just how he gets around without his prosthetics on.
If you see photos of his stumps , one was posted here a few days ago , they dont look like he walks on them .I imagined and its only guess work on my part that he walks on his knees or on his bum as his stumps look like they have no muscle or wide enough base to balance on .Just my opinion .
Also it is always recommended to keep the base of the stumps healthy and putting too much pressure on them will break them down . Thats is not to say that one would in an emergency use the stumps but they look small and narrow to me .
The context and circumstances are what were in place, not what he claims to have believed.
We never know for certain that many criminals lie, but they do.
The context, and circumstances are taken into account, and a verdict brought on the basis of that, not an assumption they are telling the truth, and unless you can prove otherwise, they are innocent.
He isn't innocent, and should be convicted of murder, even with his story.
I think you have missed the point here.
I mentioned context and circumstance in reply to someone who said that if he got off, it would mean that anyone could shoot anyone and also get off.
My point was that that would not be the case, as whether someone got off or not would depend entirely on the context and circumstances in which they shot someone.
My point was that the context and circumstance in which OP shot Reeva will not be the same context and circumstance as anyone else who ever shoots anyone.
Agree with all of that. With the bit in bold, I was thinking of something similar.
Having arrived at the point where OP was stood in front of the toilet door with a gun, under which circumstance would he be more likely to shoot:
1. He knew his unarmed girlfriend, whom he loved, was on the other side?
2. He thought there was an armed intruder, trapped, on the other side?
I would have thought 2.
So if 1. is the least likely, although obviously not impossible option, it reminds me of the Sherlock quote:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
or 3. A woman he'd been having a blazing row with all night, and had locked herself in the bathroom, and he wanted to shoot the lock off as she refused to come out.
or 4. This didn't actually occur, and the door shots were created after he'd killed her during a domestic to give an impression of "i thought there was a burglar".
Comments
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.
That is really sad. He shouldn't blame himself, she was 29 and he couldn't be expected to collect his adult 'children' from boyfriend's houses at that age.
And the weight of Reeva would have been apparent, imo.
Sorry, but to say there was no context or circumstance is utterly ridiculous.
No situation exists without context and circumstance.
And it is utterly absurd to state that there was no reason to think there was a burglar based on the fact that we now know there was no burglar.
There's every possibility that he's not telling the truth, we just don't know.
Agree.
It is all about OP at the moment but Reeva is the victim here
Thank you
Because the whole situation isn't sensational and tragic enough with just the known facts - it has to be titillated up for media circulation.
This graphic is very useful, and yes, I hadn't realized he moves backwards. He is very vulnerable doing this as his gun hand is on the floor while he is moving and his vision awkward. No to me this makes no sense whatsoever either.
Totally agree with you. I have said before. Why did he not put his legs on ? He must be quite speedy at doing them.
None of his statement makes sense to me.
One could also argue that he did put his legs on too.
Well there still hasn't been a dangerous burglar in the bathroom.
Every form of logic, and common sense suggests that Reeva was the obvious person to be there, and he had every chance to establish that.
His excuse is massively flawed, even if true, which many doubt.
There are more obvious reasons to what happened.
There has to be a murder conviction out of this, or it sets a precedent that anyone can shoot any noise they claim to hear.
Ah, but this is crime-ridden South Africa, so I understand how protective he would feel, especially where girls/women are concerned. Hell bells, even my dad gets on my case when I'm out and it's getting dark. And that's in here in London.
But yes, you're right. He shouldn't feel guilty and many would not expect him to collect his adult children from places one would expect them to safe and secure.
Undoing my own argument here, but I like to be fair. Some people BTL on the article claim he can walk on his stumps, so he could have gone forwards..
I think someone said about 1000 posts back that this sort of thing is quite common.
He said he has mobility on his stumps though, never did he say he dragged himself along. More sensational reporting and probably pretty easy to determine just how he gets around without his prosthetics on.
It could also be argued that he'd never taken his legs off, if the lights and reports of arguments all night are correct.
DP, I'm assuming you're ex police? If this event had happened in the UK would he have been granted bail, in your opinion? (sorry if you've already stated the answer elsewhere).
Thats very interesting .It also makes him lower than some previouely thought .He is basically on his bum so any shot would be upwards IMO .
Yes , he looks vulnerable and I cant imagine why he would back down a corridor where he thought a danger lay . Why would he do that ?
The context and circumstances are what were in place, not what he claims to have believed.
We never know for certain that many criminals lie, but they do.
The context, and circumstances are taken into account, and a verdict brought on the basis of that, not an assumption they are telling the truth, and unless you can prove otherwise, they are innocent.
He isn't innocent, and should be convicted of murder, even with his story.
Agree with all of that. With the bit in bold, I was thinking of something similar.
Having arrived at the point where OP was stood in front of the toilet door with a gun, under which circumstance would he be more likely to shoot:
1. He knew his unarmed girlfriend, whom he loved, was on the other side?
2. He thought there was an armed intruder, trapped, on the other side?
I would have thought 2.
So if 1. is the least likely, although obviously not impossible option, it reminds me of the Sherlock quote:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Yes. I wonder if there is any pictorial evidence of him walking on his stumps?
If you see photos of his stumps , one was posted here a few days ago , they dont look like he walks on them .I imagined and its only guess work on my part that he walks on his knees or on his bum as his stumps look like they have no muscle or wide enough base to balance on .Just my opinion .
Also it is always recommended to keep the base of the stumps healthy and putting too much pressure on them will break them down . Thats is not to say that one would in an emergency use the stumps but they look small and narrow to me .
I think you have missed the point here.
I mentioned context and circumstance in reply to someone who said that if he got off, it would mean that anyone could shoot anyone and also get off.
My point was that that would not be the case, as whether someone got off or not would depend entirely on the context and circumstances in which they shot someone.
My point was that the context and circumstance in which OP shot Reeva will not be the same context and circumstance as anyone else who ever shoots anyone.
or 3. A woman he'd been having a blazing row with all night, and had locked herself in the bathroom, and he wanted to shoot the lock off as she refused to come out.
or 4. This didn't actually occur, and the door shots were created after he'd killed her during a domestic to give an impression of "i thought there was a burglar".