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? 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 Chances are she didn't get chance to flush if she had just had a dump/slash. The "evidence" in theory would be sitting in the pan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 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 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. This is the totally crazy part for me though, you shouldn't be able to 'get off' killing someone you shot dead in cold blood just by using the excuse "oops I thought it was someone else". It's totally messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chappy Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 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. This is what the crux is for me. I think he is guilty. I think he will be found not guilty of premeditated murder though. Could the prosecution appeal in this instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 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. If I recall from another thread quite a lot of VT'ers have cricket bats / baseball bats etc by the bed with the view that they will batter anyone that breaks into their house... The logic was they would protect their family, possibly you'd check but that hesitation may be the difference between you surprisingly the intruder or not .. Add in some fear factor , the make up of the person and so on and it's plausible that you might just react..... And then In SA many appear to use guns instead of bats 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 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. If I recall from another thread quite a lot of VT'ers have cricket bats / baseball bats etc by the bed with the view that they will batter anyone that breaks into their house... The logic was they would protect their family, possibly you'd check but that hesitation may be the difference between you surprisingly the intruder or not .. Add in some fear factor , the make up of the person and so on and it's plausible that you might just react..... And then In SA many appear to use guns instead of bats An example of SA is that at most Gvmt and official buildings there are signs about handing in firearms while in the building. There is a very large gun (protection) business here and again people are judging what they are hearing in the trial against what happens in the UK for example Reading this mornings paper is interesting as the locals now are starting to blame the inept initial police evidence gathering for the uncertainty of the trial. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 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.If I recall from another thread quite a lot of VT'ers have cricket bats / baseball bats etc by the bed with the view that they will batter anyone that breaks into their house... The logic was they would protect their family, possibly you'd check but that hesitation may be the difference between you surprisingly the intruder or not .. Add in some fear factor , the make up of the person and so on and it's plausible that you might just react..... And then In SA many appear to use guns instead of bats An example of SA is that at most Gvmt and official buildings there are signs about handing in firearms while in the building. There is a very large gun (protection) business here and again people are judging what they are hearing in the trial against what happens in the UK for example Reading this mornings paper is interesting as the locals now are starting to blame the inept initial police evidence gathering for the uncertainty of the trial. That for me is why he will be found not guilty. The evidence trail is a shambles. Theft from his house, mishandled/ evidence will all add up to an acquittal on technicalities. Does SA have a Double Jeopardy law? Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 No they don't according to the "Star" this morning. Some of the quotes re evidence being left in corridors, guns being handled, watches being stolen etc make you wonder how they can prove without any doubt that he is guilty. What did make me smirk was an article from a local "pastor" who was outside the trial claiming he was innocent and it was Satan that caused her to be killed. Can't beat a bit of old school religious rational thinking :-) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 He'll get off because of who he is and he's got the best legal team money can buy. This is almost as infuriating as watching Wayne Rooney strut about with his wig on earning £300,000 per week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 15, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 15, 2014 He'll get off because the prosecution is inept and the police corrupt and shambolic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Do they have very different laws in South Africa about what constitutes reasonable force, I expect they do. Over here, he'd be looking at a long stretch anyway even if he did honestly think it was a burglar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Do they have very different laws in South Africa about what constitutes reasonable force, I expect they do. Over here, he'd be looking at a long stretch anyway even if he did honestly think it was a burglar. I had thought the law over there said you have to fire a warning shot first and if the burglar doesn't leave then you are able to shoot them and have it count as 'self defense'. From what i'd heard this leads to people shooting the burglar then firing the 'warning shot' into the wall to avoid prosecution. I am not a criminal lawyer in SA though so could be BS but if true he would be guilty of not firing the warning to let the burglar escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Do they have very different laws in South Africa about what constitutes reasonable force, I expect they do. Over here, he'd be looking at a long stretch anyway even if he did honestly think it was a burglar. I had thought the law over there said you have to fire a warning shot first and if the burglar doesn't leave then you are able to shoot them and have it count as 'self defense'. From what i'd heard this leads to people shooting the burglar then firing the 'warning shot' into the wall to avoid prosecution. I am not a criminal lawyer in SA though so could be BS but if true he would be guilty of not firing the warning to let the burglar escape. Except he fired 4 shots and only 3 hit Ms Steenkamp so he's even got an out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Do they have very different laws in South Africa about what constitutes reasonable force, I expect they do. Over here, he'd be looking at a long stretch anyway even if he did honestly think it was a burglar. I had thought the law over there said you have to fire a warning shot first and if the burglar doesn't leave then you are able to shoot them and have it count as 'self defense'. From what i'd heard this leads to people shooting the burglar then firing the 'warning shot' into the wall to avoid prosecution. I am not a criminal lawyer in SA though so could be BS but if true he would be guilty of not firing the warning to let the burglar escape. does the burglar then have to fire a warning shot back at you in the event he is also armed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) Big day tomorrow. Ballistics will make or break Oscar's story. Of the bullet holes in the door, 3 are below 100cm one slightly over. Oscar's shoulder height, assuming he had the gun at shoulder lever with legs on was 156cm, without legs 123cm. It would IMO appear to show he was not wearing his legs when he fired a 60 cm (2ft) arc in that space seems unlikely. 30cms seems more reasonable. Edited March 18, 2014 by Eames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Do they have very different laws in South Africa about what constitutes reasonable force, I expect they do. Over here, he'd be looking at a long stretch anyway even if he did honestly think it was a burglar. I had thought the law over there said you have to fire a warning shot first and if the burglar doesn't leave then you are able to shoot them and have it count as 'self defense'. From what i'd heard this leads to people shooting the burglar then firing the 'warning shot' into the wall to avoid prosecution. I am not a criminal lawyer in SA though so could be BS but if true he would be guilty of not firing the warning to let the burglar escape. does the burglar then have to fire a warning shot back at you in the event he is also armed ? Evidence yesterday included answers given by Pistorious, demonstrating that he was well aware of the circumstances in which you can shoot someone (direct threat to the person) and when you can't. In fact he got top marks in the test he took on this. Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Do they have very different laws in South Africa about what constitutes reasonable force, I expect they do. Over here, he'd be looking at a long stretch anyway even if he did honestly think it was a burglar. I had thought the law over there said you have to fire a warning shot first and if the burglar doesn't leave then you are able to shoot them and have it count as 'self defense'. From what i'd heard this leads to people shooting the burglar then firing the 'warning shot' into the wall to avoid prosecution. I am not a criminal lawyer in SA though so could be BS but if true he would be guilty of not firing the warning to let the burglar escape. Except he fired 4 shots and only 3 hit Ms Steenkamp so he's even got an out there. But surely if he fired a warning shot his misses who have said "hey ho old chum what the bloody hell is going on out there". Rather than sitting quitely thinking that gun sounding noise was a bit odd and then taking the next three in the chest. Or maybe she did shout out and Oscar did not match her voice to his own girlfiend because he was so convinced the misses was still in the bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) I'm not saying he fired the shot that missed her first, just that she was hit by 3 bullets and he fired 4 shots. The issue of the warning shot is irrelevent since he can't argue his life was in danger behind a locked bathroom door can he? Witness evidence would indicate there were 4 "bangs" followed by further "bangs" Oscar says gunfirst then bat. Prosecution says bat first then gun. My own view is that he knew it was her and he shot her during an arguement. Murder yes, premeditated, possibly . Are the prosecution able to prove either of those things? IMO no. Edited March 18, 2014 by Eames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I think each of the 4 shots were in quick succession so the question of which shot missed and whether that could be the warning shot is irrelevant and that count as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1874 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I just don't believe for a second that he didn't know it was his girlfriend behind the door/that she didn't make a sound before he shot her dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) ok I haven't read though the whole of this thread but we were talking about it at work and I just don't buy the whole thing about him thinking his missus was in bed next to him, I mean if it was you or me then yeah maybe we would jump out of bed and race off within seconds but surely Oscar Pistorius would have had to clearing in the woods about putting his legs on during which time you would have thought he would have noticed his missus lying next to him, unless he sleeps with his legs on which I think would be just weird Edited March 18, 2014 by leemond2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts