Oscar Pistorius

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'll be honest to wavering a bit after reading these tweets.

PeterMac wrote:They are disputing the evidence of the trajectory of the bullets.
OP says he did not have his legs on: the holes in the door indicate he must have done.

In such cases, expect the expected and note the unexpected.

Assume the subject is telling the complete truth and thus anything unexpected will stand out.

Place yourself in the same situation, what would you do?

What would be your instinctive reactions on waking up and hearing a strange noise, now think again if you havefamily, guests or pets in the house.

Most if not all of you will automatically and instinctively shout who's there?

It tells the noise make you are aware of them as well as alerting anyone in earshot.

The normal reply will often be it's only me you twit, possibly followed by an apology for scaring you.

What you are not likely to do is go in with guns blazing.

if the door is locked and it's the bathroom, the person inside is going nowhere.

Common sense will say it is a houseguest, you don't go in shooting to break down the door or smashing in the door, you may ask if they are ok or simply return to bed maybe feeling a bit silly.

If it is an intruder they have nowhere to go, they are trapped, they are no danger and have 2 options, wait till the cops arrive or take a risk and make a run for it, not smart since the person on the other side of the door is armed and shooting.

There is no need for any shots to be fired.

The angle of the shotsapparantly is from high to low which would indicate he had his legs on, this shows he has been deceptive, deceptive people have a reason to lie.

Should his story start changing then discrepancies explaned away with one version reveal discrepancies elsewhere.

Reports of arguments and domestic problems provide him with a motive, self defence is out since she was in a locked bathroom and no threat to him.

Fear of an intruder is the same, they were in the bathroom and trapped, no need to shoot.

What we are left with is anger.

The defence may have to admit defeat and aim for mitigating factors such as his disability, any medication.

They will likely be the same thing.

There has been no mention of the security system i.e. alarm/panic buttons/cctv within the house and there has been no mention of the security company patrolling the estate or the gate patrol procedures.

Things will unfold. It is good to remember that not all of us know how it is to live in South Africa with the threat of violence as part of everyday life.

Did OP know the door was locked though ? He arrives with a gun, why would he try to open the door, if outside it and terrified of who was in there. So the door is closed, he may not at that point have known if it were locked.

I would not call out if I heard something unusual in my house. I know my husband would not wake me if he heard an intruder, he would deal with it himself to avoid me going nuts.

I don't think there is a usual reaction or a normal expected response to this situation, in particular because he was obviously obsessive about break-ins and security. Even if people have firearms in their home, most don't sleep with them under their bed.

The forensic evidence will be key to this and in particular the height of the bullet holes.

I know my husb. would wake me up tell me to get on the mobile to police and push me out the side door, but we are all different.
He does seem to have a damn good lawyer though.
Does anybody know if you need syringes and injections for herbal remedies.

from a post by Hobs " if the door is locked and it's the bathroom, the person inside is going nowhere."

but OP said he thought a ladder left near the unbarred bathroom window had been the means of entry,,,,,,intruder could have escaped the same way, so was not trapped ?

There was a very interesting investigative journalist speaking on CNN saying that the country is notorious for violent crime, a rape every 4 minutes and a female killed by her partner every 8 minutes, staggering statistics. She mentioned OP having accidentally discharged a gun in a public place in recent weeks when messing about with his friends.......it was not reported she said due to the attitude to celebrities and especially sportsmen as just letting off steam by acting daft. That due to OP's amazing achievements he is regarded as more than human and not a flawed individual .

I guess it is possible in such a violent climate to be very fearful and maybe if adrenalin kicks in you go into flight or fight mode and he simply did not use his common sense. The ballistics, forensics in the house and the P.M. findings will be interesting.

from Daily Telegraph,

by Allison Pearson, 7.51 p.m. GMT 20th February 2013.
Oscar Pistorius case: The Blonde is the victim here, Blade



Oscar Pistorius’s story has more holes than a colander. I don’t feel an ounce
of pity for him.



The irrelevance of Oscar Pistorius's girlfriend
Reeva Steenkamp to the main event was confirmed by a tabloid headline.
'Blade Slays Blonde', it proclaimed, not bothering to give her the
dignity of a name.


If you have just accidentally shot dead the woman you love, what do you do? Is
it:



a) Dial 999 and summon an ambulance



b) Call your girlfriend’s parents and beg forgiveness



c) Go to a church and pray hard



d) Hire a leading PR to manage your reputation.



Call me a foolish romantic, but I would rule out “d” right away. If you were
innocent and grief-stricken, why would your thoughts turn to “crisis
communications”? Yet this is exactly what Oscar Pistorius did within hours
of the violent death of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp at his home in
Pretoria.


The 26-year-old Paralympian called up Stuart Higgins, the former editor of The
Sun and now a public relations expert. Pistorius’s PR team lost no time in
relaunching his website to put the most positive spin on what they variously
describe as “these tragic events” and “this terrible, terrible tragedy”.
Looking at the website, with its stirring pictures of the Blade Runner in
action, you notice that the words murder and death do not feature. For, lo,
we have entered the soothing land of PR euphemism, where world-famous
disabled heroes do not gun down.


Among those paying tribute to Oscar is his uncle, Arnold Pistorius. “Words
cannot adequately describe our feelings,” says Arnold. “The lives of our
entire family have been turned upside down for ever by this unimaginable
human tragedy and Reeva’s family have suffered a terrible loss.”

Observe that it is the Pistorius family which has suffered “an unimaginable
human tragedy” – their golden boy faces a career-wrecking charge of
premeditated murder. The family of Reeva Steenkamp, the victim of the crime
who appears to have been shot three times while in the toilet, has merely
suffered “a terrible loss”.


Reeva’s irrelevance to the main event was confirmed by a tabloid headline.
“Blade Slays Blonde”, it proclaimed, not bothering to give her the dignity
of a name. On Tuesday, as a hearse took Reeva’s body to the crematorium,
Oscar Pistorius sobbed throughout a bail hearing. It was an affecting
performance. One might almost call it Oscar-winning. Commentators began to
admit they felt a sneaky sympathy for the stricken track star. Even the
magistrate asked him if he was feeling all right.


And so, very cunningly, the tragedy is appropriated from the dead woman and
becomes the tragedy of the man accused of killing her. The fact that,
according to a neighbour, he silenced Steenkamp’s screams with two further
gunshots, is of little consequence to Pistorius’s supporters.


“I didn’t have my prosthetic legs on. I felt vulnerable,” explained Pistorius,
playing the disability card for the first time in a life that has, until
now, been remarkably free of self-pity. He was explaining why he fired at a
locked bathroom door behind which he was convinced there was a burglar.
Because burglars always lock themselves in bathrooms, don’t they? To steal
the soap and the hand towel. Just as girlfriends always lock the door when
they need a pee in the middle of the night. And men who think there’s a
burglar in the bathroom never bother to shout out first and give their
girlfriend a chance to say, “Baby, put the gun down, it’s only me.”


Pistorius’s story has more holes than a colander. I don’t feel an ounce of
pity for him. Of course, his PR man, Stuart Higgins, begs to differ: “Our
job is to capture some of the support that Oscar is receiving from all over
the world, lots of positive messages from people who still believe in him,”
explained Higgins.


Fame – that is, real global fame of the kind Oscar Pistorius enjoys – has its
own protective forcefield. You can believe in a star even when you no longer
believe the story they’re trying to peddle. That’s why Michael Jackson kept
selling records. That’s why, even now, there are Lance Armstrong fans who
have clung to the faith. When fans say they still “believe” in a celebrity,
what they mean is: “I refuse to let any unpleasant facts interfere with the
noble image I have of you.” Even if those unpleasant facts include the
corpse of a 29-year-old model and law student who was, by all accounts, as
lovely as her face.


At the height of the Jimmy Savile scandal, the entertainer’s niece told ITV’s
This Morning that her relatives were angry when she decided to speak out
about what creepy Uncle Jimmy had done to her. “Without his fame, they’d be
nothing,” explained the niece.


Fame can do that. It zips people’s lips and mortgages their hearts. Only weeks
ago, Oscar Pistorius fired a gun in a restaurant. The bullet narrowly missed
a friend’s foot, but police were not called. If a complaint had been made,
maybe the testosterone-fuelled athlete might have realised he was not above
the law. But the restaurant owner was happy to accept that no gun had been
fired because Oscar’s friends lied to protect his reputation.


The obvious comparison here is with O J Simpson, who went on trial in Los
Angeles in 1995 for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend
Ron Goldman. Like Pistorius, Simpson had form when it came to domestic
violence. The prosecution thought it had a solid case. But, also like Blade
Runner, O J was a good-looking sports god who had overcome considerable odds
to find fame, fortune and a beautiful blonde. Race was a complicating
factor, but it was O J’s celebrity that turned a vicious murder case into
the Trial of the Century. Last September, 18 years after Simpson was
sensationally acquitted, Kato Kaelin (a TV personality and witness at the
trial) was asked if Simpson killed Brown and Goldman. Kaelin replied: “The
statute of limitations has now passed… so I can now say… yes, he did it.”


Asked why he let O J Simpson get away with murder, Kaelin said: “I was too
scared. I was terrified… People hated me. I’ve been spat upon. They threw
gum in my coffee.”


Fame can do that, too. Never underestimate the human desire not to know the
worst about our heroes.


Let me leave you with a piercing irony. Just days before Reeva Steenkamp was
killed, she sent tweets offering her support for female victims of violence.
Her country has a deplorable record in that area. On average, a South
African woman is killed every eight hours by her partner or relative.


After her funeral, Steenkamp’s Uncle Mike told reporters that his niece wanted
to be an activist for ending abuse against women. “Unfortunately, it has
swung right around, but I think that the Lord knows that her statement is
more powerful now,” he said.


It certainly is. When Oscar Pistorius’s case comes to court, it should be the
man who faces the murder charge, not the sporting legend. Gold medallists
can be made of baser metals. There is only one victim of unimaginable human
tragedy here. Her name was Reeva Steenkamp.


there are 111 comments.

What I find most strange in this story is the fact that he without checking the bed for his girlfriend and finding his gun under the bed assumed it was an intruder. I would say that the first thing to check when hearing noises is that it's not someone already in the house, someone you know, he also said he shouted at the person , so why did she not reply back?

A few months ago I woke up hearing someone downstairs in our hallway. First thing I did was look to my right in the bed checking if my hubby was there. Then I quietly looked down the hallway to see if it was my landlord son who occasionally uses the room in the cellar for sleepover. When realizing that infact it was a burglar I then picked up a kitchen knife, woke my hubby and then called the police.. If I had a gun I would not have shot at him without clearifying that it was someone I knew,and even then I don't think I would have shot the person unless I felt he was about to attack me and my life was at stake .

IMO this sounds like a second of rage and jealousy where he shot her and then came up with the story in seconds as hiding the body would be more incriminating and harder for him to do.
She was found with a white shirt and a black west on, and sounded like she maybe was leaving him and he could not handle that. If she had woken up and gone to the loo I don't think that's what she would have weared for clothing.

Then again her blather was empty indicating she had just used the loo, but she could have peed before leaving the house if they had argued or something .
Explains him saying he did not plan to kill her, and that his intention was not to murder her.And his grief afterwards. Ppl can do the most shocking things in a wave of pain feeling they are about to lose someone they are deeply in love with ..

I'm sure more evidence will come to surface..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is a very important view, on behalf of Pistorius. The police man giving evidence is himself being investigated for alleged murder. Changes the picture a bit. I have made a copy of the above in case it gets whooshed.

It is important news but it would help if so- called journalists reported it accurately and I do not think that one of two who were discussing today's news on ITV's Daybreak prpogramme did so. More evidence that this show is nothing more than a magazine show just as This Morning is, a TV version of reading material such as Take a Break and the like.

She introduced the big news of today re- the Pistorius case and said that the lead invesitgator opened fire on a minibus while drunk, either in 2009 or 2011 [ why not check the date before discussing this ?] and seven people died. I read everywhere else that what is being investigated in his case is attempted murder 2011, no deaths. Shocking nevertheless but should have been reported accurately.

I posted the piece by A Pearson because of its vehemence at a stage when the trial has not even begun. The bail stage seems more like a pre -trial hearing and it is surprising that so much information has surfaced. This might be seen now to be prejudicng the trial and I hope that things calm down.
The comments reflect the interent reaction to this story, polarised positions. Interesting that on twitter the McCann supporters are going with inept police, OP would not have killed this woman deliberately, while there is a lot of cynicism about his version of events from McCann doubters.

I am trying to keep an open mind, but from the OP statement alone I can understand why, if this is what was explained to police, he was under suspicion.

While it is sad that a golden boy of sport with amazing achievements has fallen from grace so spectacularly, by at the very least not exercising caution beofre firing a gun, the real tragedy is that of the deceased and her family and loved ones.

I totally agree with your statement below, russiandoll.

"The comments reflect the interent reaction to this story, polarised positions. Interesting that on twitter the McCann supporters are going with inept police, OP would not have killed this woman deliberately, while there is a lot of cynicism about his version of events from McCann doubters."

But then they can't adopt any other approach, as it would make their supposedly genuine belief in the abduction theory even less easy to swallow. So they have painted themselves into the corner of credulity.
And they will forever have to publically support all kinds of impossible stories, in order to maintain that the McCanns' version of events is a true one.

the OP case is now looking like a circus, with chaos in court, a reporter fainted due to the overcrowding....the fact that there is no jury to be prejudiced is what is allowing all the stories about the case to appear.

Apparently OP should not be filmed in court, nor should people in court be allowed to shout out as one woman has done this morning, something about OP and psychiatric help according to Sky news.

He is being investigated for "attempted" murder - not murder.

edit - I swear there was a post there a second ago about Botha being investigated for Murder and its gone?

The judge gave the woman a 10 minute hearing in court asking that OP be given a 3 month psychiatric assessment apparently. The judge threw the request out but she said she is going to appeal.
Edited to add that he was filmed in court as proceedings had not yet started.

[quote="russiandoll"]It is important news but it would help if so- called journalists reported it accurately and I do not think that one of two who were discussing today's news on ITV's Daybreak prpogramme did so. More evidence that this show is nothing more than a magazine show just as This Morning is, a TV version of reading material such as Take a Break and the like.

She introduced the big news of today re- the Pistorius case and said that the lead invesitgator opened fire on a minibus while drunk, either in 2009 or 2011 [ why not check the date before discussing this ?] and seven people died. I read everywhere else that what is being investigated in his case is attempted murder 2011, no deaths. Shocking nevertheless but should have been reported accurately.

I posted the piece by A Pearson because of its vehemence at a stage when the trial has not even begun. The bail stage seems more like a pre -trial hearing and it is surprising that so much information has surfaced. This might be seen now to be prejudicng the trial and I hope that things calm down.
The comments reflect the interent reaction to this story, polarised positions. Interesting that on twitter the McCann supporters are going with inept police, OP would not have killed this woman deliberately, while there is a lot of cynicism about his version of events from McCann doubters.

I am trying to keep an open mind, but from the OP statement alone I can understand why, if this is what was explained to police, he was under suspicion.

While it is sad that a golden boy of sport with amazing achievements has fallen from grace so spectacularly, by at the very least not exercising caution beofre firing a gun, the real tragedy is that of the deceased and her family and loved ones.[/quote]
------------------------------------------
LOL, so true

I started off believing this guy Im not so sure now but this could be due to false or misleading stories, I just hope its not another OJ

The photos of him in the papers today do nothing to show he is a distraught and innocent man

Hells Bells

I hope the courts find the truth

The bail decision within a few minutes. I think I might be in a minority in that I hope this man is granted bail.

OP has been granted bail.

I thought the judge was extremely thorough with everything and the reasoning for imprisoning him was weak. Good decision. Why should anyone be stuck into prison when there is no evidence for the charges brought. Because he is rich and famous does not necessarily mean, like many are spouting, that he is obviously guilty and only got bail because of having the best lawyers.

The fact remains IF that OP's girlfriend is dead, having met a very violent end. To say there is no evidence for the charges is nonsensical. OP opened fire at what he believed to be an intruder through a closed bathroom door. What justification did he have for using such lethal force in those circumstances? Was there any risk to his life at that stage? It doesn't appear there was. Why didn't he call security on the estate or police to report an intruder on premises? Why didn't he then withdraw from the area to await the arrival of security/police to enter the premises and search for the "intruder"?

I do not believe he had any justification to discharge his weapon in the circumstances as he had numerous other options available to him.

Bob Southgate wrote:The fact remains IF that OP's girlfriend is dead, having met a very violent end. To say there is no evidence for the charges is nonsensical. OP opened fire at what he believed to be an intruder through a closed bathroom door. What justification did he have for using such lethal force in those circumstances? Was there any risk to his life at that stage? It doesn't appear there was. Why didn't he call security on the estate or police to report an intruder on premises? Why didn't he then withdraw from the area to await the arrival of security/police to enter the premises and search for the "intruder"?

I do not believe he had any justification to discharge his weapon in the circumstances as he had numerous other options available to him.

justification? Wait for police? Youre having a laugh, he thought his gfs and his life was in danger, we are talking about south africa here where you can get macheted in seconds, and he had had death threats too, he also was a panicked man with no legs,he went to a cost the burglar he shouted to his gf to call while he went to do this, you cant do two things at once, all the evidence points to a tragedy and not a cold KILLING JMO I could be wrong

He didn't check where his girlfriend was, when panic broke?
Bizarre.

ETA
IMO first thing you do is make sure your loved ones [even including pets maybe] are safe before you'd start shooting.

Châtelaine wrote:He didn't check where his girlfriend was, when panic broke?
Bizarre.

it was dark, he got out of bed to bring the fan in from the balcony and then heard a noise there is a total affidavit somewhere, hang on will edit this post with it

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hm
So you live in a "violent" country, have enough worries about your safety, yet leave the balcony doors open and have an unprotected window in the bathroom?

You don't switch on the lights, but go firing on a closed toilet door, whereas you don't know where your girlfriend is?

And you start your bail statement with "how much" you're worth? So as to put a value on your being?

I may be totally mistaken, but I do have my doubts ...

Châtelaine wrote:Hm
So you live in a "violent" country, have enough worries about your safety, yet leave the balcony doors open and have an unprotected window in the bathroom?

You don't switch on the lights, but go firing on a closed toilet door, whereas you don't know where your girlfriend is?

And you start your bail statement with "how much" you're worth? So as to put a value on your being?

I may be totally mistaken, but I do have my doubts ...

I too had doubts and wondered if this is going to be to another OJ case, so far I dont think so from All I have read and seen, so far, if this was planned and premedited it wouldnt have happened like this

IOW there is no red flag for me in the circumstances

quote I state that the State will not be able to present any objective facts that I committed a planned or premeditated murder. unquote

Which is not the same as "I didn't commit a murder" ...

Châtelaine wrote:Hm
So you live in a "violent" country, have enough worries about your safety, yet leave the balcony doors open and have an unprotected window in the bathroom?

You don't switch on the lights, but go firing on a closed toilet door, whereas you don't know where your girlfriend is?

And you start your bail statement with "how much" you're worth? So as to put a value on your being?

I may be totally mistaken, but I do have my doubts ...

Before firing a gun in a confined space, it would be sensible to tell girlfriend to keep away, after all the intruder could have fired back, did he tell her to I wonder?

Inspectorfrost wrote:justification? Wait for police? Youre having a laugh, he thought his gfs and his life was in danger, we are talking about south africa here where you can get macheted in seconds, and he had had death threats too, he also was a panicked man with no legs,he went to a cost the burglar he shouted to his gf to call while he went to do this, you cant do two things at once, all the evidence points to a tragedy and not a cold KILLING JMO I could be wrong

The evidence points to a dead person who was shot several times. I note you are being selective with what I said. I said that OP could have withdrawn from the house and called police and estate security. He did not do that but chose to shoot first and ask questions later. It might not have been a premeditated murder but the signs are there that there was a high degree of negligence which resulted in a death that could have been avoided.

Bob Southgate wrote:The fact remains IF that OP's girlfriend is dead, having met a very violent end. To say there is no evidence for the charges is nonsensical. OP opened fire at what he believed to be an intruder through a closed bathroom door. What justification did he have for using such lethal force in those circumstances? Was there any risk to his life at that stage? It doesn't appear there was. Why didn't he call security on the estate or police to report an intruder on premises? Why didn't he then withdraw from the area to await the arrival of security/police to enter the premises and search for the "intruder"?

I do not believe he had any justification to discharge his weapon in the circumstances as he had numerous other options available to him.

And he meant to kill whoever he thought was in the bathroom because he dispensed 4 bullets. One would have been enough to warn intruder.
Like I pointed out earlier, how can he not know that his g/f whom he claimed was spending the night in bed with him was not on the bed when he fired the shots.
It may be dark and whatnot but the first thing one does when hearing a noise is to check with the person right next to you whether she also heard the noise.
To assume straight away it is an intruder then carry to shoot the intruder without regard for the safety of his partner who is in the same room/bed is reckless because by doing so he was endangering her.
Because assuming there is really an intruder hiding in the bathroom who is to say the intruder is not armed or wont fire back?
Then surely his G/F whom he claimed he thought was in bed would be in danger if the intruder fires back isn't it?

Fire four means he meant to kill the person. Now the prosecutor has to prove he knew it was the G/F hiding inside and he meant to kill her.
It may be a crime of passion rather than pre-meditated. But I have no doubt he meant to kill. How can it not be when one fires not ONE but FOUR shots.

The miraculous thing is that he fired with such accuracy that of the 4 bullets he fired 3 hit his G/F - one bullet in the head and two in the abdomen. That tells you he must have known the exact location of his target.

I think he is guilty of murder,why would you sleep with balcony doors open if you had been burgled and had death threats,surely you would make sure you were double secure in your home.and this line in his avffidavit seems funny to me.
My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. seems to me he is using his legs to get symphany