bickster Posted March 14, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2014 I'm what you'd term a light sleeper but sometimes I'm unwakeable. Nearly everyone goes into deep sleep at some point. I've seen no mention of him being an insomniacWhy is it unlikely that he didn't wake up when she got up?Seems like a big leap to meWhether he woke up when she did is irrelevent. The issue is when HE woke up, he would have know she was not there. If you thought someone had broken into your house, prior to confronting them you check that your loved one is safe. You don't get up and start arbitrarily blasting away at closed doors. The other problem with Oscar's account is if you get up in the night to go to the loo you wouldn't lock the door if it was just you and your partner in the house. Exactly His ex-girlfriend who gave evidence even said that in the past he heard a noise thinking there was an intruder in the house but on that occasion he woke her before he went to investigate Why did he follow common sense on that occasion and not this one? It just doesn't add upDoes everyone react the same way to a similar circumstance every single time? No, they absolutely don't.Human beings aren't trained monkeys, especially when they wake suddenly.Just because someone did something one way previously does not mean they'll make the same decision a second time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) I'm what you'd term a light sleeper but sometimes I'm unwakeable. Nearly everyone goes into deep sleep at some point. I've seen no mention of him being an insomniac Why is it unlikely that he didn't wake up when she got up? Seems like a big leap to me Whether he woke up when she did is irrelevent. The issue is when HE woke up, he would have know she was not there. If you thought someone had broken into your house, prior to confronting them you check that your loved one is safe. You don't get up and start arbitrarily blasting away at closed doors. The other problem with Oscar's account is if you get up in the night to go to the loo you wouldn't lock the door if it was just you and your partner in the house. Exactly His ex-girlfriend who gave evidence even said that in the past he heard a noise thinking there was an intruder in the house but on that occasion he woke her before he went to investigate Why did he follow common sense on that occasion and not this one? It just doesn't add up Because he's human? I'm not saying I believe him, on the contrary I think he's guilty. *Think* isn't enough though is it. All this talk of trainers, maybe she went for a bit if fresh air first, knocked over a pan or something on the way back in then went for a shit. It's not enough to convict a man. Totally agree. My personal belief based on what I've seen heard of the trial is that he prosecution are correct in that he murdered her. I also think he battered the door first with the bat and then shot her. Trouble is, as you correctly say, is because of the horlicks the authorities have made over the investigation and their failure to maintain of the integrity of the evidence means there is enough "reasonable doubt" for it to be virtually impossible for the premeditated murder charge to stick. Strange they didn't punt for the SA equivilent of manslaughter instead. Edited March 14, 2014 by Eames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 14, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2014 I just don't believe you fire 4 times through a closed door without checking the person you are in the room with hasn't gone for a dump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 14, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2014 I just don't believe you fire 4 times through a closed door without checking the person you are in the room with hasn't gone for a dump.You aren't South African though, you come from an entirely different culture and mindset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I just don't believe you fire 4 times through a closed door without checking the person you are in the room with hasn't gone for a dump. if it was Trevor Francis the other side of the door you would this is the bit I was trying to find out though ... was she actually using the toilet in which case it would suggest OP could be telling the truth ..or was the toilet bowl empty , suggesting that she had gone in there to hide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I just don't believe you fire 4 times through a closed door without checking the person you are in the room with hasn't gone for a dump. if it was Trevor Francis the other side of the door you would this is the bit I was trying to find out though ... was she actually using the toilet in which case it would suggest OP could be telling the truth ..or was the toilet bowl empty , suggesting that she had gone in there to hide All we have heard before is that she had an empty bladder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I blame Film violence and its influence on human behaviour Reeva and Oscar were watching Demolition man in bed both went to sleep but in the middle of the night Reeva decided to try out the three sea shells. Oscar woke up to the sound of scraping and thought Simon Phoenix was in his bathroom he pulled out his gun thinking he was John Spartan the rest is history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 14, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2014 I just don't believe you fire 4 times through a closed door without checking the person you are in the room with hasn't gone for a dump. You aren't South African though, you come from an entirely different culture and mindset No but my God parents are and they hold the same view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Because he's human? I'm not saying I believe him, on the contrary I think he's guilty. *Think* isn't enough though is it. All this talk of trainers, maybe she went for a bit if fresh air first, knocked over a pan or something on the way back in then went for a shit. It's not enough to convict a man. Nope, not by itself, but the fact is it contradicts his evidence. To turn things around, you've also got to be pretty sure of things before you let a man go free who's shot and killed a young woman. The problem is that in common with most similar crimes, there were only two people there and one of them can't give evidence. I totally get the fact that South Africa is an entirely different place than the UK, but his story in my opinion just doesn't stack up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Yes its possible that Oscar was asleep and didn't wake up when his girlfriend got up and left the bedroom Yes its possible they went to bed at 10, she got up for a snack at midnight then went back to bed, then got up again at 2, slipped her trainers on and went to the en suite without him realising. Yes its possible Oscar didn't give a single consideration that it might be his girlfriend in the bathroom before he fired multiple shots. .... possible, but VERY, VERY unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Not wishing to sound like one of our posters on here ;-) but is there evidence to suggest she was actually "using" the toilet she was sat on when shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Not wishing to sound like one of our posters on here ;-) but is there evidence to suggest she was actually "using" the toilet she was sat on when shot? that's pretty much the million Rand question imo ... anything to prove she was actually on the toilet probably gets him off as someone posted earlier , all they seem to be saying is her bladder was empty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Not wishing to sound like one of our posters on here ;-) but is there evidence to suggest she was actually "using" the toilet she was sat on when shot? that's pretty much the million Rand question imo ... anything to prove she was actually on the toilet probably gets him off as someone posted earlier , all they seem to be saying is her bladder was empty Which is consistent with her having a wee very shortly before she was killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) There's a joke in there somewhere. I tried and failed. Edited March 14, 2014 by CrackpotForeigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Not wishing to sound like one of our posters on here ;-) but is there evidence to suggest she was actually "using" the toilet she was sat on when shot? that's pretty much the million Rand question imo ... anything to prove she was actually on the toilet probably gets him off as someone posted earlier , all they seem to be saying is her bladder was empty Which is consistent with her having a wee very shortly before she was killed. How long does a bladder remain empty after urinating? Particularly without drinking any more fluid. It could have been she went to the toilet an hour or two hours before and her bladder still remained empty, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I wonder did he shoot her in the legs ................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 14, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2014 I wonder did he shoot her in the legs ................................... No they've already established he wasn't wearing them Oh I see..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Not wishing to sound like one of our posters on here ;-) but is there evidence to suggest she was actually "using" the toilet she was sat on when shot? Other than them testing to see if there was urine in the basin or if she had her pants round her ankles when she died i don't know how else you could tell if she had Edited March 14, 2014 by AshVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpet Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 For what it's worth I think he did it, premeditated murder. However I also think he will be found not guilty. The defence barrister is much stronger than the prosecution and some of his cross examination has been excellent. We have to bare in mind also that currently we have only had the prosecution evidence, with cross examination, so we have only had one side thus far. The defence will say investigations have not been done correctly, police reports cant be relied on...etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I wonder did he shoot her in the legs ................................... very funny, the hip i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts