Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[Samson]

The only facts that are truly known are that Pistorius fired four shots into the bathroom or water closet and killed Reeva Steenkamp. To say that Steenkamp urinating shortly before being shot to death rules out the possibility that Pistorius is guilty of willful murder seems to be a stretch. Cited are the many wrongful convictions we all know about or at least suspect. But the reverse is true as well; sometimes the person turns out to be rightfully convicted. People do lie under oath.

I always think of the Dan White case in the U.S. White killed two political rivals in San Francisco's City Hall in an incident many years ago. White maintained it wasn't premeditated that he had just snapped. Many people believed him and argued passionately in his defense. Others insisted White was lying, that he had planned the whole thing. A jury accepted his story and he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years in prison. After he served his sentence -- and was protected from being tried again -- White admitted the killings had been completely premeditated.

In the Pistorius case we are also challenged to explain motive with capital M. We must seek cases where complete certainty of discovery of guilt, alongside extreme wealth are present. This is the case in a premeditating Oscar.

 

[GlennB]

Of course this is the heart of the matter, yet all wrongful crime narratives are confounded by outlying data points. In this case the empty bladder gets me 90% to accepting that Oscar is telling the whole truth. The blackout curtains get me to 99%.

He claimed to have been fetching fans from the balcony when he first heard noises in the bathroom. The story is the curtains were open at that point, allowing in at least some light from the street. Pistorius merely argued about how far open the curtains were, not that they were closed.

 

[Samson]

He claimed to have been fetching fans from the balcony when he first heard noises in the bathroom. The story is the curtains were open at that point, allowing in at least some light from the street. Pistorius merely argued about how far open the curtains were, not that they were closed.

I can't be certain that you are wrong, but I am convinced by his narrative. We might also study this thread for evidence anyone has changed their opinion. I can see no such evidence, so a deeper study is called for, maybe in a new thread. Why are there two sets of facts?

 

[katy_did]

He claimed to have been fetching fans from the balcony when he first heard noises in the bathroom. The story is the curtains were open at that point, allowing in at least some light from the street. Pistorius merely argued about how far open the curtains were, not that they were closed.

I'm pretty sure he said he'd already brought the fans in and closed the curtains at the point where he heard the noise.

 

[GlennB]

I'm pretty sure he said he'd already brought the fans in and closed the curtains at the point where he heard the noise.

Well, I refreshed my memory earlier and found things like:

14.26 In his closing statements Nel summed up Pistorius's version of events: the police must have moved the fans, placed the duvet on the floor and opened the curtains further than they were.

My bolding. But Pistorius had just been outside and exposed to the (still on) balcony light, so totally closing the blackout curtains when his eyes were somewhat adapted to light strikes me as a good way of effectively blinding yourself for a while.

 

[Hard Cheese]

The WC in the drawing looks somewhat larger than what is shown in the photos I linked to above. Looking at the photos I really have a hard time seeing how he could have missed hitting someone who was in the WC.

There are more detailed floor plans of the bathroom in some of the other images, you can work out that the cubicle is 1.495 x 1.420 m.

It looks like the only possibility of *not* hitting the occupant (if OP was shooting at the centre of the door) was if they were sitting on the toilet..but even then I'd imagine that would be a matter of luck in a cubicle that size.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Okay, if he was firing "warning" shots, wouldn't he have preceded them with a verbal warning, along the lines of "Who's there? I have a gun!

He is supposed to have screamed at the intruder to get out of his house as he went towards the bathroom. But then I don't see how he explains why not only did the "intruder" say nothing in response, but Reeva, in his mind back in the bed, remains quiet through all this.

I also must confess my worldly inexperience in that I have never slept in a bed so large that I wouldn't notice whether or not someone was in it with me,

Even if he had a King sized bed, where it might be plausible to not sense/feel the person next to you, his story is barely credible. Not only did he leave the bed to get the fan, he had to come back to it to rummage underneath it to get the gun, and then walk past the end of it to get to the bathroom. All without noticing the occupant (even a shape in the dark), and supposedly through all this said occupant doesn't wake up, move, make a sound, or say a word.

That doesn't make much sense either. My first thought would be to get her out of danger, starting with waking her up

Exactly. If your intention is to protect a loved one, to the point where you are willing to take on an intruder in total darkness whilst in fear of your life, the first thing you do is make sure they are actually safe.

 

[Metullus]

In the Pistorius case we are also challenged to explain motive with capital M. We must seek cases where complete certainty of discovery of guilt, alongside extreme wealth are present. This is the case in a premeditating Oscar.

Motive is that he was angry, that they had a fight. Not really a challenge at all.

It is certain that Pistorius fired four rounds through a door behind which he knew there was someone. We know this from his own testimony. It is certain that there was no immediate threat to Pistorius - this, too, we know from his own testimony. The suggestion that he did so not expecting to hit the person is ludicrous given the dimensions of the WC. While it is possible that he did not know that it was Keeva in the WC I do not think that it is plausible. The condition of her bladder is irrelevant.

There is no doubt - he fired his gun through the WC door with the intent of killing or injuring whoever it was that was in there.

 

[lionking]

Motive is that he was angry, that they had a fight. Not really a challenge at all.

It is certain that Pistorius fired four rounds through a door behind which he knew there was someone. We know this from his own testimony. It is certain that there was no immediate threat to Pistorius - this, too, we know from his own testimony. The suggestion that he did so not expecting to hit the person is ludicrous given the dimensions of the WC. While it is possible that he did not know that it was Keeva in the WC I do not think that it is plausible. The condition of her bladder is irrelevant.

There is no doubt - he fired his gun through the WC door with the intent of killing or injuring whoever it was that was in there.

Plus he has a history of impulsive violence.

 

[Desert Fox]

While I believe that Pistorius most likely shot his girlfriend in anger, I don't think that is provable "beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is why the court tried to divorce themselves from that but instead look at the situation, assuming that he thought it might have been somebody else in the bathroom. It sounds like the upper court decided that even in that case, it is considered murder.

 

[Metullus]

While I believe that Pistorius most likely shot his girlfriend in anger, I don't think that is provable "beyond a reasonable doubt."

What is true beyond a reasonable doubt is that he unlawfully killed her.

 

[Desert Fox]

What is true beyond a reasonable doubt is that he unlawfully killed her.

I agree with that.

 

[LondonJohn]

He is supposed to have screamed at the intruder to get out of his house as he went towards the bathroom. But then I don't see how he explains why not only did the "intruder" say nothing in response, but Reeva, in his mind back in the bed, remains quiet through all this.

Even if he had a King sized bed, where it might be plausible to not sense/feel the person next to you, his story is barely credible. Not only did he leave the bed to get the fan, he had to come back to it to rummage underneath it to get the gun, and then walk past the end of it to get to the bathroom. All without noticing the occupant (even a shape in the dark), and supposedly through all this said occupant doesn't wake up, move, make a sound, or say a word.

Exactly. If your intention is to protect a loved one, to the point where you are willing to take on an intruder in total darkness whilst in fear of your life, the first thing you do is make sure they are actually safe.

Quite. And Pistorius did in fact try to claim in his story that he was very concerned about protecting Steenkamp from this mythical "intruder".

So, with that in mind, let's check on Pistorius' version again. He claims that he heard noises from the bathroom area and indentified human activity there, which he took to be an intruder (since he assumed Steenkamp was lying in bed). So:

1) Wouldn't many rational people at this point - if they were assuming there was a (potentially very dangerous and even armed) intruder entering their house, with their partner (as far as they assumed) lying within touching distance of them in bed - rouse the sleeping partner and whisper something like "I think there's somebody in the house. Call the police and stay in here, I'm going to investigate"?

2) Even if (1) above didn't happen, let's imagine that things developed to a point (as per Pistorius' story) where he was advancing on the bathroom area shouting loudly at the intruder to "get the F out of my house". Given that such shouting and commotion would have almost certainly woken and startled the partner whom he assumed was lying in his bed, wouldn't most rational people have also shouted something like "Reeva! Stay in there (or go downstairs) and call the police!"? At which point he would have received the reply from within the toilet along the lines of "Oscar! I'm in here! In the toilet! It's not an intruder in here!".

Frankly, Pistorius' story totally disintegrates the moment he pretends that one of the things uppermost in his mind was to protect Steenkamp. After all, had he genuinely been thinking about protecting her, I'd argue that it's highly likely that one or both of the above scenarios would have played out - and either of those scenarios would have informed Pistorius that Steenkamp wasn't actually in the bed but that it was her in the toilet room rather than any intruder. It's perhaps ironic that had Pistorius claimed in his defence that he hadn't stopped to consider Steenkamp's own safety, his (entirely mythical in fact) version of events might have been somewhat more plausible.

 

[Samson]

Motive is that he was angry, that they had a fight. Not really a challenge at all.

It is certain that Pistorius fired four rounds through a door behind which he knew there was someone. We know this from his own testimony. It is certain that there was no immediate threat to Pistorius - this, too, we know from his own testimony. The suggestion that he did so not expecting to hit the person is ludicrous given the dimensions of the WC. While it is possible that he did not know that it was Keeva in the WC I do not think that it is plausible. The condition of her bladder is irrelevant.

There is no doubt - he fired his gun through the WC door with the intent of killing or injuring whoever it was that was in there.

This is a case where the penalty and opprobrium should be determined mainly by intent. Intent to kill or scare Reeva or Intruder. Once we determine that, we can all equally make suggestions about the penalty.
I regard the empty bladder as a very strong indicator his story holds water, and I believe there is a way to resolve the question without considering any aspect of law. This is a solvable problem.

 

[The Atheist]

This is a case where the penalty and opprobrium should be determined mainly by intent. Intent to kill or scare Reeva or Intruder.

Why do you insist intent be a reason?

You would require all western countries at least to amend the law, because the majority of them demand no more than the perpetrator being aware that actions are likely to result in death or serious injury.

Your idea is absurd and would result in lots of murderers walking free.

I regard the empty bladder as a very strong indicator his story holds water,...

yes, very clever.

... and I believe there is a way to resolve the question without considering any aspect of law. This is a solvable problem.

Nobody cares and it isn't relevant.

As in NZ, under SA law, he's guilty, no matter who was in the bathroom, or even who he thought was in there.

Go ahead and work it out, but the rest of the world is satisfied that justice has been done. The appeal is just delaying the inevitable now.

 

[trustbutverify]

This is a case where the penalty and opprobrium should be determined mainly by intent. Intent to kill or scare Reeva or Intruder. Once we determine that, we can all equally make suggestions about the penalty.
I regard the empty bladder as a very strong indicator his story holds water, and I believe there is a way to resolve the question without considering any aspect of law. This is a solvable problem.

Well, since I think the evidence is consistent with hot-blooded murder of an innocent human being, I'd say the maximum, or near maximum penalty is appropriate. But then again, I'm not invested in celebrity.

 

[Scordatura]

Oscar is out on bail and it looks like Roux is going to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Pistorius granted bail: summary

Oscar Pistorius will stay out of jail at least until he returns to court on 18 April 2016 after Judge Aubrey Ledwaba agreed that he should remain on bail, despite his fresh conviction for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.

Bail was set at just 10,000 rand (less than £500), payable by Friday, after the defence said Pistorius had no money left.

Ledwaba said it would not be in the interests of justice to restrict Pistorius to house arrest at his uncle’s Pretoria home for 24 hours a day, as the state had requested, so allowed him to keep his current freedom to leave the house between 7am and midday every day.

He will be electronically tagged, and must keep within a 20km radius of the house and surrender his passport.

We also learned that the defence will submit an appeal to the constitutional court against the murder conviction.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/dec/08/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-returned-to-jail-live

ETA: here's the bail affidavit:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/292616612/Oscar-Pistorius-Affidavit#scribd

 

[Samson]

It is my hope that this thread can better analyse the immediate phone calls statements and actions after the tragedy to establish what happened. My view is that the SA system seems to continually show flexibility and intelligence. Things can be learned.

 

[icerat]

Quite. And Pistorius did in fact try to claim in his story that he was very concerned about protecting Steenkamp from this mythical "intruder".

So, with that in mind, let's check on Pistorius' version again. He claims that he heard noises from the bathroom area and indentified human activity there, which he took to be an intruder (since he assumed Steenkamp was lying in bed). So:

1) Wouldn't many rational people at this point - if they were assuming there was a (potentially very dangerous and even armed) intruder entering their house, with their partner (as far as they assumed) lying within touching distance of them in bed - rouse the sleeping partner and whisper something like "I think there's somebody in the house. Call the police and stay in here, I'm going to investigate"?

1) he wasn't in the bed when he heard the "intruder"
2) he reportedly did whisper something like that to her

2) Even if (1) above didn't happen, let's imagine that things developed to a point (as per Pistorius' story) where he was advancing on the bathroom area shouting loudly at the intruder to "get the F out of my house". Given that such shouting and commotion would have almost certainly woken and startled the partner whom he assumed was lying in his bed, wouldn't most rational people have also shouted something like "Reeva! Stay in there (or go downstairs) and call the police!"? At which point he would have received the reply from within the toilet along the lines of "Oscar! I'm in here! In the toilet! It's not an intruder in here!".

3) Assuming she heard, how would Reeva, in reality in the toilet, know that Oscar was referring to someone in the toilet? Wouldn't the intelligent thing be to stay quite and not attract the attention of the intruder? That's what I'd do. Maybe even try to carefully open the door so I can hear better what's going on ....

 

[MikeG]

This is a case where the penalty and opprobrium should be determined mainly by intent. Intent to kill........

Exactly. When he pointed the gun, he intended to kill whoever was behind the door. It doesn't matter who it was, or what the state of their bladder was. When he decided to kill someone, anyone, behind a shut door, he was committing murder.