Lets face it, we've had made up rumours about steroids being found, and made up rumours about her head being battered with a cricket bat and made up rumours surrounding the order of phone calls made ..... but they don't seem to have disputed that the shots were fired through a door.
Yesterday it was almost taken as gospel by posters on here that her bladder was empty, but today we heard in court that no evidence has been submitted by the defence to verify that.
I think we don't even know half the information the prosecution/defence will have by the time the trial starts, so the bullets not being through a closed door could still happen.
Or maybe the intruder got in through the open bathroom window, heard Oscar moving around in the bedroom and hid in the toilet, planning on re-emerging and killing them both the moment Oscar went back to bed. Totally plausible and, given the country, very possible.
Was there an open bathroom window, and unlocked doors? If so, not the type of scene someone supposedly as fearful of burglars as he claims to be, would leave.
"It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
So why didnt he get Reeva, open the bedroom door and egress that way? Instead of choosing to open fire randomly through a closed toilet door.
I think it is quite likely that following a blazing row, she's locked herself in the bathroom, and he's gone into a rage, and fired wildly through the door, maybe aiming at an area he didn't expect her to be in.
If i was arguing with a man with no legs, I'd just run down the stairs and get out of the house, rather than lock myself in a room. From the floor plans of the house, it would take longer to run into the bathroom and into the toilet area, than just run out of the room.
Even if he had his prosthetics on, surely he'd take longer to negotiate stairs than an abled bodied person?
Post mortem results showed that the only injuries to her body were those of the gun shots. No smashed head, no buising, no evidence of a physical assault.
Thing is that Domestic Abuse doesn't just cover physical abuse.
That will be for a court to decide upon, and decide whether his actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
He has no grounds to believe a burglar is in there. Th e chances of that, ahead of it being his girlfriend were remote in the extreme.
He had a gun, and could cover any escape of the imaginary burglar anyway, and he could have ensured the safety of his girlfriend at the same time.
I wouldn't call what he did reasonable in the circumstances.
He's in a guarded compound too, with no history of burglary, and burglars dont tend to go through occupied bedrooms to use the toilet.
Its easy to say he had no grounds to believe a burglar was there, when we now know in the cold light of day there was no burglar in there.
But in the cold dead of night, when he had heard an unexpected sound, and realised a window was open? Suddenly that assertion becomes far less certain.
Yes, he had a gun, and could cover any escape. Except maybe if the intruder had superior firepower, and started shooting through the bathroom door when he heard someone approaching.
Had that scenario happened, would you still argue that OP had that covered?
I wouldn't call it reasonable either, but that's not really the point.
Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't happen. And it certainly doesn't prevent someone from thinking it might be happening.
Yesterday it was almost taken as gospel by posters on here that her bladder was empty, but today we heard in court that no evidence has been submitted by the defence to verify that.
I think we don't even know half the information the prosecution/defence will have by the time the trial starts, so the bullets not being through a closed door could still happen.
It was probably taken as gospel because it was reported as a post mortem finding yesterday.
If i was arguing with a man with no legs, I'd just run down the stairs and get out of the house, rather than lock myself in a room. From the floor plans of the house, it would take longer to run into the bathroom and into the toilet area, than just run out of the room.
Even if he had his prosthetics on, surely he'd take longer to negotiate stairs than an abled bodied person?
That is a red herring, because there was no intruder.
So any argument that the intruder wouldn't have acted a particular way is moot.
Apologies if this has been covered, but if the bedroom door was locked, and presumably Reeva went through it before he did, did OP not stop to think "why is the bedroom door unlocked?"? And would she have shut the bedroom door behind her after going to the bathroom? I never do, as from past experience, even in my own house, I've misjudged where the door is when it's been shut and just walked straight into it, or into the wall. And wouldn't he have heard the door being unlocked, being opened and then shut again?
If i was arguing with a man with no legs, I'd just run down the stairs and get out of the house, rather than lock myself in a room. From the floor plans of the house, it would take longer to run into the bathroom and into the toilet area, than just run out of the room.
Even if he had his prosthetics on, surely he'd take longer to negotiate stairs than an abled bodied person?
I doubt she expected him to shoot her. People often lock themselves in other rooms during arguments. She may just as easily have gone to the toilet for the purpose of using it.
I'm not quite sure how you can be so certain there's no evidence, given that there hasn't been a trial yet and no evidence has been presented, or even forensics completed nevermind released.
We only have hints as to the direction they're going to go in., and I suspect that direction is going to be about painting a man prone to bursts of domestic violence (we don't yet know the details or number of the "previous incidents", including hours earlier that night).
Apologies if this has been covered, but if the bedroom door was locked, and presumably Reeva went through it before he did, did OP not stop to think "why is the bedroom door unlocked?"? And would she have shut the bedroom door behind her after going to the bathroom? I never do, as from past experience, even in my own house, I've misjudged where the door is when it's been shut and just walked straight into it, or into the wall. And wouldn't he have heard the door being unlocked, being opened and then shut again?
I believe the bedroom door leading to the rest of the house not the adjoining bathroom.
"It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
So why didnt he get Reeva, open the bedroom door and egress that way? Instead of choosing to open fire randomly through a closed toilet door.
Because, in a split second decision, without hindsight, in the dead of night and in fear of his life, he decided that if he ran, woke Reeva, got Reeva out of bed, got the key for the bedroom door, unlocked the bedroom door...
..that would be enough time for the intruder to get into the bedroom and shoot them?
It was probably taken as gospel because it was reported as a post mortem finding yesterday.
I'm not saying the posters were wrong. I'm just saying that we're getting a lot of misinformation at the moment relying on tweeting court reporters and even a prosecution/defence team that don't have the full facts to hand so it isn't outisde the realms of possibility that at a later stage, it may be found that the shots weren't exactly fired as currently described.
Or maybe the intruder got in through the open bathroom window, heard Oscar moving around in the bedroom and hid in the toilet, planning on re-emerging and killing them both the moment Oscar went back to bed. Totally plausible and, given the country, very possible.
Okay. I think domestic violence is more likely though.
There is a lot to consider, like the history, type of shouting heard, his demeanor upon calling the police, all were probably considered in bringing charges.
Its easy to say he had no grounds to believe a burglar was there, when we now know in the cold light of day there was no burglar in there.
But in the cold dead of night, when he had heard an unexpected sound, and realised a window was open? Suddenly that assertion becomes far less certain.
Yes, he had a gun, and could cover any escape. Except maybe if the intruder had superior firepower, and started shooting through the bathroom door when he heard someone approaching.
Had that scenario happened, would you still argue that OP had that covered?
I wouldn't call it reasonable either, but that's not really the point.
Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't happen. And it certainly doesn't prevent someone from thinking it might be happening.
If he suspected the "intruder" had superior firepower, it would be illogical to approach, whilst he was in a position to cover the area anyway.
Making sure his girlfriend was safe would be a priority. He got a gun, without even checking her, so he says. He claims to have called out to her, but got no answer.
It doesn't take much to think it may be her in the toilet.
Apologies if this has been covered, but if the bedroom door was locked, and presumably Reeva went through it before he did, did OP not stop to think "why is the bedroom door unlocked?"? And would she have shut the bedroom door behind her after going to the bathroom? I never do, as from past experience, even in my own house, I've misjudged where the door is when it's been shut and just walked straight into it, or into the wall. And wouldn't he have heard the door being unlocked, being opened and then shut again?
Because, in a split second decision, without hindsight, in the dead of night and in fear of his life, he decided that if he ran, woke Reeva, got Reeva out of bed, got the key for the bedroom door, unlocked the bedroom door...
..that would be enough time for the intruder to get into the bedroom and shoot them?
One would expect the key for the bedrom door to be in the lock - ike it was in the toilet?
I'm not quite sure how you can be so certain there's no evidence, given that there hasn't been a trial yet and no evidence has been presented, or even forensics completed nevermind released.
We only have hints as to the direction they're going to go in., and I suspect that direction is going to be about painting a man prone to bursts of domestic violence (we don't yet know the details or number of the "previous incidents", including hours earlier that night).
The post mortem as reported yesterday says there were no defensive wounds or injuries other than those caused by bullets.
Comments
Yesterday it was almost taken as gospel by posters on here that her bladder was empty, but today we heard in court that no evidence has been submitted by the defence to verify that.
I think we don't even know half the information the prosecution/defence will have by the time the trial starts, so the bullets not being through a closed door could still happen.
Was there an open bathroom window, and unlocked doors? If so, not the type of scene someone supposedly as fearful of burglars as he claims to be, would leave.
So why didnt he get Reeva, open the bedroom door and egress that way? Instead of choosing to open fire randomly through a closed toilet door.
If i was arguing with a man with no legs, I'd just run down the stairs and get out of the house, rather than lock myself in a room. From the floor plans of the house, it would take longer to run into the bathroom and into the toilet area, than just run out of the room.
Even if he had his prosthetics on, surely he'd take longer to negotiate stairs than an abled bodied person?
Possibly. You would imagine she'd be making some noise when he started firing the gun.
Thing is that Domestic Abuse doesn't just cover physical abuse.
Its easy to say he had no grounds to believe a burglar was there, when we now know in the cold light of day there was no burglar in there.
But in the cold dead of night, when he had heard an unexpected sound, and realised a window was open? Suddenly that assertion becomes far less certain.
Yes, he had a gun, and could cover any escape. Except maybe if the intruder had superior firepower, and started shooting through the bathroom door when he heard someone approaching.
Had that scenario happened, would you still argue that OP had that covered?
I wouldn't call it reasonable either, but that's not really the point.
Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't happen. And it certainly doesn't prevent someone from thinking it might be happening.
It was probably taken as gospel because it was reported as a post mortem finding yesterday.
That is a red herring, because there was no intruder.
So any argument that the intruder wouldn't have acted a particular way is moot.
I doubt she expected him to shoot her. People often lock themselves in other rooms during arguments. She may just as easily have gone to the toilet for the purpose of using it.
I'm not quite sure how you can be so certain there's no evidence, given that there hasn't been a trial yet and no evidence has been presented, or even forensics completed nevermind released.
We only have hints as to the direction they're going to go in., and I suspect that direction is going to be about painting a man prone to bursts of domestic violence (we don't yet know the details or number of the "previous incidents", including hours earlier that night).
I believe the bedroom door leading to the rest of the house not the adjoining bathroom.
Her last moments must have been terrifying.
What? I was replying to someone suggesting she hid in the bathroom during an argument with OP.
Because, in a split second decision, without hindsight, in the dead of night and in fear of his life, he decided that if he ran, woke Reeva, got Reeva out of bed, got the key for the bedroom door, unlocked the bedroom door...
..that would be enough time for the intruder to get into the bedroom and shoot them?
I'm not saying the posters were wrong. I'm just saying that we're getting a lot of misinformation at the moment relying on tweeting court reporters and even a prosecution/defence team that don't have the full facts to hand so it isn't outisde the realms of possibility that at a later stage, it may be found that the shots weren't exactly fired as currently described.
Okay. I think domestic violence is more likely though.
There is a lot to consider, like the history, type of shouting heard, his demeanor upon calling the police, all were probably considered in bringing charges.
If he suspected the "intruder" had superior firepower, it would be illogical to approach, whilst he was in a position to cover the area anyway.
Making sure his girlfriend was safe would be a priority. He got a gun, without even checking her, so he says. He claims to have called out to her, but got no answer.
It doesn't take much to think it may be her in the toilet.
Apologies - crossed wires. I thought you meant the intruder, not Reeva.
Soz.
It was an en-suite bathroom inside the bedroom.
One would expect the key for the bedrom door to be in the lock - ike it was in the toilet?
The post mortem as reported yesterday says there were no defensive wounds or injuries other than those caused by bullets.
I'm repeating myself now ...
Yep she was still alive when he carried her down the stairs.