Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[anglolawyer]

Anglolawyer; i think the same too that there must be something left. If we go on the idea because the pee wasn't found that her motivation for going to the WC was to have a pee and that she or OP flushed the toilet, then she didn't run to the WC to get away from him. If the WC light didn't work but the bathroom light did she may well of left the door open. What we do know is the pee is missing.

Hi, Colin from France and welcome to this discussion.

Yes, it's funny that rather than use the bathroom light she used her phone as a torch but we have run that passed the posters here and there is no shortage who claim they would act the same way as she did, so it's not decisive. Nor would it be even if there were a former lover, roommate or family member who testified that she always/never locked the toilet door.

I wonder whether Oscar is particularly averse to light at night. He has these super dark curtains IIUC and it may be his sensitivity was why she was loathe to just turn on a light to lead her to the cubicle. Or maybe his lighting system was ill-designed and it was too bright. We just don't know these things.

 

[Colin from France]

Fine, but it's around here that there seems to be the most questions, such as if the pee wasn't found did OP flush it, if so why, if he didn't flush it then he would of heard it being flushed.

 

[anglolawyer]

Fine, but it's around here that there seems to be the most questions, such as if the pee wasn't found did OP flush it, if so why, if he didn't flush it then he would of heard it being flushed.

Did they conduct a sound test to see whether the flush could be heard and from what distance? I bet not. Did they take prints off the handle of the flusher or whatever its called?

 

[katy_did]

Which leaves the puzzle: if he murdered her in a fit of rage, what trace of that did he leave? I always get booed from the stage whenever I mention Columbo but I am sure the peerless detective would have fastened on some detail missed by the cops that sows up the whole thing. For want of a better idea, I go back to the missing pee. If everything was OK and she just went for a leak, since her bladder was found to be empty, she must have peed. If she did, the pee was in the pan and if it was not there she must have flushed and if she flushed he would have heard it.

She took her phone, as a torch the judge thought, and went into the cubicle, where the light didn't work and locked the door. What evidence was there about her usual habits in that regard? I almost never lock the bathroom door and see no reason to when with my partner, nor she either and if we split and she got in a relationship with someone else and I heard she locked the bathroom door I would think it strange. Reeva did not remove her shorts, so either she had just got there and not had time to use the WC (in which case there should have been pee in her bladder) or she had already finished and had dressed again (in which case she would have flushed).

This may not be the best point, but there must be something (if he's guilty). It sure is interesting from the pro-innocence side that nobody clearly and unambiguously heard what must have been a flaming row between them before the shots were fired. Surely, if you are so far gone as to blaze away at your girlfriend, there should be a lot of preliminary screaming and shouting on both sides.

The type of details you mention are the ones that people who argue his guilt was proven fixate on, of course. The problem is there are plausible explanations for all of them: maybe she didn't go into the bathroom to use the toilet but to get a drink of water and open the bathroom window, and only went into the toilet to hide when she heard Pistorius shouting about an intruder. Her empty bladder could be explained by her using the toilet up to half an hour beforehand (her getting back into bed might even have been what disturbed Pistorius, as he says she was awake when he woke up). Using her phone as a light seems plausible enough, and locking the door also seems perfectly possible, whether she did it because that was her habit, or because she thought there was an intruder outside.

The argument he knew it was Reeva seems largely made up of details like this to me - behaviours people find odd, and which added together are supposed to prove his guilt, but for which there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations.

Of course we can't rule out that he did kill her deliberately and just left no trace of it, but then, well, he left no trace of it. So that's that. As you say, if he's guilty then it's odd no one heard what must have been a blazing row beforehand, especially when plenty of people heard him yelling for help afterwards.

 

[Colin from France]

Did they conduct a sound test to see whether the flush could be heard and from what distance? I bet not. Did they take prints off the handle of the flusher or whatever its called?

...or the inside lock, the door being smashed to back up the intruder excuse.

 

[Skwinty]

The type of details you mention are the ones that people who argue his guilt was proven fixate on, of course.

There is no argument about his guilt. He admitted that he shot her. Innocent of premeditated murder, perhaps.

Had Pistorius just put into practice what he learnt when he obtained his gun competency certificate, he would be free and clear and competing in athletic events.

He just happens to be his own worst enemy.

 

[katy_did]

There is no argument about his guilt. He admitted that he shot her. Innocent of premeditated murder, perhaps.

Had Pistorius just put into practice what he learnt when he obtained his gun competency certificate, he would be free and clear and competing in athletic events.

He just happens to be his own worst enemy.

Yes, obviously I meant those who say he's guilty of premeditated murder (although, the fact he shot her isn't in itself automatic proof he's guilty of a crime).

No argument with the rest.

 

[anglolawyer]

The type of details you mention are the ones that people who argue his guilt was proven fixate on, of course. The problem is there are plausible explanations for all of them: maybe she didn't go into the bathroom to use the toilet but to get a drink of water and open the bathroom window, and only went into the toilet to hide when she heard Pistorius shouting about an intruder. Her empty bladder could be explained by her using the toilet up to half an hour beforehand (her getting back into bed might even have been what disturbed Pistorius, as he says she was awake when he woke up). Using her phone as a light seems plausible enough, and locking the door also seems perfectly possible, whether she did it because that was her habit, or because she thought there was an intruder outside.

The argument he knew it was Reeva seems largely made up of details like this to me - behaviours people find odd, and which added together are supposed to prove his guilt, but for which there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations.

Of course we can't rule out that he did kill her deliberately and just left no trace of it, but then, well, he left no trace of it. So that's that. As you say, if he's guilty then it's odd no one heard what must have been a blazing row beforehand, especially when plenty of people heard him yelling for help afterwards.

Very clever and a good answer to the missing pee/locked door/lights off conundrums.

 

[Colin from France]

...or the inside lock, the door being smashed to back up the intruder excuse.

But then again he would have moved the key from the inside to the outside even if the door had not been locked.

 

[Skwinty]

Yes, obviously I meant those who say he's guilty of premeditated murder (although, the fact he shot her isn't in itself automatic proof he's guilty of a crime).

No argument with the rest.

Yes, there are mitigating circumstances which could make a self defense killing lawful.

However in this case there are none.

 

[katy_did]

Yes, there are mitigating circumstances which could make a self defense killing lawful.

However in this case there are none.

Not sure who you're trying to convince.

 

[Azrael 5]

From Oscar's own testimony after the shooting"I sat on the bed and it occurred to me maybe it was Reeva in the bathroom"
Maybe??? Where else would she be?
To me the silence of Reeva throughout the whole thing is ridiculous.

 

[Skwinty]

Not sure who you're trying to convince.

No one. It's just me expressing my opinion.

 

[katy_did]

Very clever and a good answer to the missing pee/locked door/lights off conundrums.

Plus, the noise he heard and which led him to fire might have been the key turning in the lock, especially as she was standing right in front of the door (he said with hindsight he thought it was the magazine rack moving, but obviously if he's telling the truth he can't know that for sure).

Obviously, this on the assumption she locked it because of the 'intruder' rather than out of habit.

 

[MontagK505]

I demur, while appreciating the effort. Gun safety training is not the same as self defence. Question for you and Ampulla of Vater below.


No, again respectfully, he was in his own home and had a legal right to defend himself, Reeva and his property. Moreover, when he went towards the bathroom he was in precautionary mode, not being sure what he had heard. He was checking it out. His evidence, which the judge seems to have accepted (if only the basis that there was nothing that directly contradicted it) was that he heard a sound behind the closed toilet door and fired instinctively, believing there was an intruder there and that the intruder was about to come out. Remember that, although mobile, he was on his stumps and would have been at a disadvantage in the event of a confrontation.

Let's replay the action on the hypothesis that he was alone that night. What difference would it make if everything went the same way right up to the moment he was standing outside the toilet door having heard the sound of someone inside?

His disadvantage is made worse by traveling down a dark passageway toward the danger.

He wasn't alone that night and he knew it. That makes his behavior reckless and irresponsible. Your right to defend yourself doesn't mean you have the right to disregard the safety of guests in your own home.

 

[katy_did]

No one. It's just me expressing my opinion.

Fair enough then!

 

[MontagK505]

No one knows anything about motive, but just going by what we do 'know' there is a considerable amount of evidence which goes against OP's version, an example would be that he stated there was no intent to shoot, yet there were breaks between shots and there were four shots. The intention to kill is obvious, accident can be ruled out, from a purely subjective point of view i get the impression he wanted to shoot from the moment he picked up the gun. I would like to relate what we do know to the judges verdict last week.

The key point that the judge made is that the prosecution did not prove that Oscar knew it was Reeva in the toilet. Yes, Oscar intended to kill somebody, the prosecution didn't prove that Reeva was the intended target. The judges possible reason for culpable homicide is that Oscar knew he had a guest in his home and was irresponsible by not being sure of his target before firing.

Welcome to the fun-factory Colin.

 

[MontagK505]

The type of details you mention are the ones that people who argue his guilt was proven fixate on, of course. The problem is there are plausible explanations for all of them: maybe she didn't go into the bathroom to use the toilet but to get a drink of water and open the bathroom window, and only went into the toilet to hide when she heard Pistorius shouting about an intruder. Her empty bladder could be explained by her using the toilet up to half an hour beforehand (her getting back into bed might even have been what disturbed Pistorius, as he says she was awake when he woke up). Using her phone as a light seems plausible enough, and locking the door also seems perfectly possible, whether she did it because that was her habit, or because she thought there was an intruder outside.

The argument he knew it was Reeva seems largely made up of details like this to me - behaviours people find odd, and which added together are supposed to prove his guilt, but for which there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations.

Of course we can't rule out that he did kill her deliberately and just left no trace of it, but then, well, he left no trace of it. So that's that. As you say, if he's guilty then it's odd no one heard what must have been a blazing row beforehand, especially when plenty of people heard him yelling for help afterwards.

You are right, none of this proves Oscar knew Reeva was in the toilet.

 

[newyorkguy]

The key point that the judge made is that the prosecution did not prove that Oscar knew it was Reeva in the toilet. Yes, Oscar intended to kill somebody, the prosecution didn't prove that Reeva was the intended target. The judges possible reason for culpable homicide is that Oscar knew he had a guest in his home and was irresponsible by not being sure of his target before firing.

People often say this during a murder trial but what's missing is Reeva's voice. I think the chances are excellent that she was murdered as a result of someone's violent rage. Why did she lock the door? Who speaks for her? She went to the bathroom and wound up getting shot four times. Did she deserve that? I have a suspicion that if she could come back she'd say, "Are you people serious? He murdered me!"

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

What man can honestly say he has never unloaded four elephant stopping bullets into a door his other half is cowering behind?
This seems to be your point.

No, very far from it. Have you ever had a personal experience of real, uncontrollable rage in the heat of the moment? Maybe not. Have you seen someone else losing it? Hopefully not. Have you ever heard or read someone else's account of the same? You should. You won't find them conducting any calm, sober rationalisations about the potential consequences of given actions between being triggered and calming down. That's what losing your temper is, that's why road rage happens, why things get damaged, people do things they later regret, etc. And that's why your mathematical, detached evaluation of the consequences in different scenarios tells us nothing about what really happened.

But if you have difficulty understanding that obvious point and want to read straw men into other people's comments rather than asking for clarification, I think we're done here.