• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

I don't know to an absolute certainty that Pistorius deliberately shot and killed his girlfriend. His version just does not ring true to me. With his girlfriend in the house, overhearing someone in the bathroom, his immediate determination to kill them, without ever wondering even for a moment, "Could it be Reeva?" I'm sorry I have trouble believing that. In fact I can't even begin to believe that. Yet I realize there is always that small chance that was what happened. I know statistically it is a lot more likely that they quarreled and then he reacted in a very stupid but somewhat common way: he lost his temper and, in a fit of rage, he tried to hurt her. If that was what happened, what explanation could he offer to try avoid being charged with premeditated murder? In that situation 'I thought it was an intruder,' is about the only explanation he could offer.

This is in his own words:
“I believed someone had entered my house,” he said in the affidavit. “I grabbed my 9-millimeter pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom, and I thought Reeva was in bed.”

Walking on his stumps, he heard the sound of movement inside the toilet, a small room within the bathroom. “It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder,” he said. “I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable. I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself.”

He fired four shots, then hobbled over to the bedroom, screaming for Reeva to call the police. But when he got back to the bed, she was not there. “That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet,” he said. News link
Click to expand...


He's now a convicted murderer. Convicted of what we in the U.S. call involuntary manslaughter, what South Africa calls culpable homicide. Whatever he did he has to live with it.
 
newyorkguy said:
I don't know to an absolute certainty that Pistorius deliberately shot and killed his girlfriend. His version just does not ring true to me. With his girlfriend in the house, overhearing someone in the bathroom, his immediate determination to kill them, without ever wondering even for a moment, "Could it be Reeva?" I'm sorry I have trouble believing that. In fact I can't even begin to believe that. Yet I realize there is always that small chance that was what happened. I know statistically it is a lot more likely that they quarreled and then he reacted in a very stupid but somewhat common way: he lost his temper and, in a fit of rage, he tried to hurt her. If that was what happened, what explanation could he offer to try avoid being charged with premeditated murder? In that situation 'I thought it was an intruder,' is about the only explanation he could offer.

This is in his own words:



He's now a convicted murderer. Convicted of what we in the U.S. call involuntary manslaughter, what South Africa calls culpable homicide. Whatever he did he has to live with it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for his words, that in fact help me believe his story. That is the nature of things, few change their minds easily. But I doubted the police theory immediately, taking the simplistic view that rich people don't ruin their own lives on a whim, which was the stone cold certainty as soon as he fired a bullet if he knew she was in there. No, I believe his story. Every way I look at it I get the same conclusion, and that the state is now engaged in a malicious face saving prosecution.
 
Samson said:
Masipa concluded correctly the shooting was a tragic accident as did the owner of this forum, which is relevant mainly because he is a sharp analyst.
Click to expand...

This is one of the silliest posts I've read in a long time, perhaps ever.

I await Icerat's decision to jump off a tall building to see if you follow suit.....
 
Samson said:
Thank you for his words, that in fact help me believe his story. That is the nature of things, few change their minds easily. But I doubted the police theory immediately, taking the simplistic view that rich people don't ruin their own lives on a whim, which was the stone cold certainty as soon as he fired a bullet if he knew she was in there. No, I believe his story. Every way I look at it I get the same conclusion, and that the state is now engaged in a malicious face saving prosecution.
Click to expand...

That does not explain how someone convicted of what he was convicted of gets special treatment like being released after a year. I doubt many people would get that consideration.
 
a_unique_person said:
That does not explain how someone convicted of what he was convicted of gets special treatment like being released after a year. I doubt many people would get that consideration.
Click to expand...
Except he successfully defended his girl friend from endangerment from an evil intruder.
 
Samson said:
Except he successfully defended his girl friend from endangerment from an evil intruder.
Click to expand...

Have you even been following this case? Oscar got out of his bed, armed himself, walked around the bed when it was illuminated without noticing the love of his life wasn't actually in bed?

I know I should ignore trolling posts, but "defended his girl friend"? No, murdering her. And he will be convicted on appeal.
 
Samson said:
Thank you for his words, that in fact help me believe his story...
Click to expand...

I'm very surprised you hadn't read his statement. To be clear, he didn't defend his girlfriend, he killed her. That's a big difference. There was no intruder. The only danger to Reeva Steenkamp was from Oscar Pistorius. She herself had said she was afraid of him at times. Afraid of his temper, of the way he reacted. Please remember, the victim in this case is Reeva Steenkamp, not Oscar Pistorius.

Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
 
newyorkguy said:
I'm very surprised you hadn't read his statement. To be clear, he didn't defend his girlfriend, he killed her. That's a big difference. There was no intruder. The only danger to Reeva Steenkamp was from Oscar Pistorius. She herself had said she was afraid of him at times. Afraid of his temper, of the way he reacted. Please remember, the victim in this case is Reeva Steenkamp, not Oscar Pistorius.

Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
Click to expand...
I do not agree.
Their actions do not involve mega and certain destruction of their lives. OJ might bolster your proposition but that was a triage.
 
lionking said:
Have you even been following this case? Oscar got out of his bed, armed himself, walked around the bed when it was illuminated without noticing the love of his life wasn't actually in bed?

I know I should ignore trolling posts, but "defended his girl friend"? No, murdering her. And he will be convicted on appeal.
Click to expand...

newyorkguy said:
I'm very surprised you hadn't read his statement. To be clear, he didn't defend his girlfriend, he killed her. That's a big difference. There was no intruder. The only danger to Reeva Steenkamp was from Oscar Pistorius. She herself had said she was afraid of him at times. Afraid of his temper, of the way he reacted. Please remember, the victim in this case is Reeva Steenkamp, not Oscar Pistorius.

Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
Click to expand...
To make the point I had to resort to the facts as Oscar imagined them. You and LK can assert that he knew Reeva was behind the door, but I totally reject that proposition. It is ridiculous, just a ticket to hell for him.
 
newyorkguy said:
...
Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
Click to expand...

Case in point: the crazy looking guy with funny hair - Phil Spector? I think that's his name. There's a rich dude who ruined his life on a whim, although it would not surprise me to learn Samson thinks he's innocent too.

Rich people are the very ones who think they can buy their way out of trouble. Famous people think they're above reproach. Rich AND famous - say no more.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Because Icerat and the math lady arrived at the same conclusion. Solid evidence you've got going there.
Click to expand...
Math lady is one weird chick, but robust. She proved to her minions they were wasting time on Raffaele calling polis while postals were already there. She was totally rigorous, as she was sustaining Pistorius' account of his tragic night. Icerat was the same. Why fight logic and careful analysis?
 
The depth of despair Oscar Pistorius feels at losing the love of his life. How badly this has effected him, losing the woman he loved and cherished, by his own hand. Maybe that's overdoing it a tad? Because according to June Steenkamp, Reeva's mother, they had been dating for three months.

Mrs. Steenkamp also says:
“I did not know he had guns or was shooting them out of cars, or his lifestyle in the fast lane. I knew nothing of that," she said. "Reeva was afraid, I think, to tell me, some of the problems. She did say they were fighting all of the time, but you don’t tell your mother everything.” Links to news story
Click to expand...

I think it's both admirable and understandable that friends of the couple would say everything seemed fine in their relationship. People in an abusive relationship often try to keep up appearances. Friends may be among the last to know. There's also the fact, that when your friends are a high profile couple, if you do say something newsworthy it's going to be reported in the media and your name will be attached.

How is June Steenkamp dealing with the violent death of her daughter?
Steenkamp says she plans to start a charity to help victims of domestic abuse - but she repeatedly refused to say whether such abuse was part of her daughter’s relationship with her killer, superstar athlete Oscar Pistorius.
Click to expand...

In case there's any confusion, "refusing to say" whether there was abuse is not the same as saying there wasn't.
 
newyorkguy said:
The depth of despair Oscar Pistorius feels at losing the love of his life. How badly this has effected him, losing the woman he loved and cherished, by his own hand. Maybe that's overdoing it a tad? Because according to June Steenkamp, Reeva's mother, they had been dating for three months.

Mrs. Steenkamp also says:


I think it's both admirable and understandable that friends of the couple would say everything seemed fine in their relationship. People in an abusive relationship often try to keep up appearances. Friends may be among the last to know. There's also the fact, that when your friends are a high profile couple, if you do say something newsworthy it's going to be reported in the media and your name will be attached.

How is June Steenkamp dealing with the violent death of her daughter?


In case there's any confusion, "refusing to say" whether there was abuse is not the same as saying there wasn't.
Click to expand...
You are leaving out the fact the prosecution presented a scenario that was proved wrong. That is far more important than divining the extent and nature of possible abuse.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
The prosecution was not "proved wrong" at all. Pistorius was in possession of illegal ammunition and he murdered his girlfriend with said ammo.
Click to expand...
He murdered her if he knew she was in the bathroom. Otherwise culpable homicide is a perfect charge to lay, and for that I could imagine a vast range of penalties globally, and it seems lenient in RSA I agree. So I take it you are stating categorically he knew he was shooting at Reeva?
 
The prosecution wasn't "proven wrong" about the murder being deliberate, either. The burden on police and prosecutors is to find evidence for that. Someone's state of mind can be devilishly hard to prove and, in this case, the state couldn't do it.

I don't know if Pistorius had a choice between a jury trial or by judge. But he (or his lawyer) was smart to choose a judge. I think a judge would be much more likely to be able hold the conflicting view that a) while his story may seem unbelievable, b) the burden of proof is on the prosecution and c) no real evidence was presented that proved Pistorius deliberately shot Reeva Steenkamp.

That's the way I feel. I do not find credible Pistorius' account as to how the shooting took place. However, I accept the fact that the state was unable to produce clear evidence the shooting was a deliberate attack on Reeva Steenkamp.
 
newyorkguy said:
The prosecution wasn't "proven wrong" about the murder being deliberate, either. The burden on police and prosecutors is to find evidence for that. Someone's state of mind can be devilishly hard to prove and, in this case, the state couldn't do it.

I don't know if Pistorius had a choice between a jury trial or by judge. But he (or his lawyer) was smart to choose a judge. I think a judge would be much more likely to be able hold the conflicting view that a) while his story may seem unbelievable, b) the burden of proof is on the prosecution and c) no real evidence was presented that proved Pistorius deliberately shot Reeva Steenkamp.

That's the way I feel. I do not find credible Pistorius' account as to how the shooting took place. However, I accept the fact that the state was unable to produce clear evidence the shooting was a deliberate attack on Reeva Steenkamp.
Click to expand...
One reason I am strongly of the view he believed he was stalking an intruder is his no legs on status. This suggests profound urgency. On the other hand if anticipating a blazing row, he would prefer not to have her towering over him. It is worth remembering she was unlucky to take the head shot.
 
This can be another problem area because the only evidence we have that Pistorius did not have his prosthetic devices on is his word. As a judge told us (the jury) in a U.S. case, if we feel sworn testimony lacks credibility AND (this is a big 'and') the person testifying has a compelling reason to lie, we can set aside their testimony.

That's why I say, I don't believe anything Pistorius said to the police or in court but I agree there was not adequate evidence presented to convict him of a deliberate murder.
 
I always expected legs on legs off to be resolved in a heart beat by ballistics and was surprised it was not declared almost immediately. I was not aware it is debated.
 
Again you're arguing vehemently for Pistorius' innocence but you don't seem very familiar with the case nor the circumstances. A police ballistic witness said at trial that Pistorius "probably" wasn't wearing his prosthetics when he fired the shots through the door. However a forensic witness for the prosecution, Johannes Vermeulen, testified that the marks on the bathroom door -- from Pistorius breaking it in with a cricket bat -- suggest he was also not wearing his prosthetics when he swung the bat. Pistorius' maintains that he was.

My point is we don't really know. In recent times there has been evidence forthcoming that some police forensic analysis is basically educated guesswork and frequently wrong.
 
newyorkguy said:
Again you're arguing vehemently for Pistorius' innocence but you don't seem very familiar with the case nor the circumstances. A police ballistic witness said at trial that Pistorius "probably" wasn't wearing his prosthetics when he fired the shots through the door. However a forensic witness for the prosecution, Johannes Vermeulen, testified that the marks on the bathroom door -- from Pistorius breaking it in with a cricket bat -- suggest he was also not wearing his prosthetics when he swung the bat. Pistorius' maintains that he was.

My point is we don't really know. In recent times there has been evidence forthcoming that some police forensic analysis is basically educated guesswork and frequently wrong.
Click to expand...
At which point I would ask why you would disbelieve his account. Shooting a gun has a precise height of attack. Swinging a bat is very different. I find myself seeing the same old pattern of confirmation bias on the part of the prosecution. They lie, they know no other way. It happens all the time.
 
Polling has shown the majority of South Africans don't believe Pistorius' account either.

As for the forensics, the angle of the shots or the battering of the door with the bat could depend on factors other than whether Pistorius had his prosthetics on. It could also be because Pistorius was firing from a crouch or how he was holding the gun. The angle of the blows with the bat could depend on whether Pistorius was swinging it the way a cricket player would, or cocking it behind his shoulder and using it like an axe or using it as a battering ram. With no other real evidence to go on other than Pistorius' account I don't think it's possible to know.

Do prosecutors ever lie? Yes they do. Do boyfriends ever kill their girlfriends? Yes they do. Do homeowners ever fire shots into an occupied bathroom without determining who might be in there? I would imagine it has happened but it must be exceedingly rare.
 
newyorkguy said:
Polling has shown the majority of South Africans don't believe Pistorius' account either.

As for the forensics, the angle of the shots or the battering of the door with the bat could depend on factors other than whether Pistorius had his prosthetics on. It could also be because Pistorius was firing from a crouch or how he was holding the gun. The angle of the blows with the bat could depend on whether Pistorius was swinging it the way a cricket player would, or cocking it behind his shoulder and using it like an axe or using it as a battering ram. With no other real evidence to go on other than Pistorius' account I don't think it's possible to know.

Do prosecutors ever lie? Yes they do. Do boyfriends ever kill their girlfriends? Yes they do. Do homeowners ever fire shots into an occupied bathroom without determining who might be in there? I would imagine it has happened but it must be exceedingly rare.
Click to expand...
Polling means nothing in these cases. We have the same poll numbers in New Zealand with the proven innocent by multiple pathways Mark Lundy. And 50% believe the same of David Bain. I have personal experience of explaining these cases to people who are left in no doubt, yet started believing them guilty. This is simply because the facts can be easily demonstrated, and this is always so with a wrongful conviction. It is certainly not me being clever, just that they have never drilled into the cases as I have.

Here is a vital piece of evidence in Pistorius' favour.

A post mortem report revealed that not much liquid was found in Reeva Steenkamp's bladder after she was shot dead, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Monday.

It was about a teaspoon-full, said Professor Gert Saayman, who had conducted the autopsy on Steenkamp a day after she was shot and killed by her boyfriend, Oscar Pistorius.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/03/10/court-hears-details-of-reeva-steenkamp-s-last-meal

That is about a minute's urine, therefore she had just emptied her bladder when she was shot. I see no possible explanation for this after a row, but a clear scenario exactly as Pistorius described it.
 
Samson said:
At which point I would ask why you would disbelieve his account. Shooting a gun has a precise height of attack. Swinging a bat is very different. I find myself seeing the same old pattern of confirmation bias on the part of the prosecution. They lie, they know no other way. It happens all the time.
Click to expand...

By "his" I assume you mean Oscar's. Because it's self-serving. I don't believe he didn't notice his girlfriend was not in the bed he walked around and searched under for his gun; I don't understand how an innocent person would not ascertain the location of "the love of his life"; I can't accept an innocent person blazing away at a door without knowing or trying to know who was behind it.

An appeal before a competent judge will result in a harsher sentance.
 
Samson said:
Polling means nothing in these cases. We have the same poll numbers in New Zealand with the proven innocent by multiple pathways Mark Lundy. And 50% believe the same of David Bain. I have personal experience of explaining these cases to people who are left in no doubt, yet started believing them guilty. This is simply because the facts can be easily demonstrated, and this is always so with a wrongful conviction. It is certainly not me being clever, just that they have never drilled into the cases as I have.

Here is a vital piece of evidence in Pistorius' favour.
A post mortem report revealed that not much liquid was found in Reeva Steenkamp's bladder after she was shot dead, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Monday.

It was about a teaspoon-full, said Professor Gert Saayman, who had conducted the autopsy on Steenkamp a day after she was shot and killed by her boyfriend, Oscar Pistorius.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/03/10/court-hears-details-of-reeva-steenkamp-s-last-meal

That is about a minute's urine, therefore she had just emptied her bladder when she was shot. I see no possible explanation for this after a row, but a clear scenario exactly as Pistorius described it.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Gee this game is easy to play.....
 
lionking said:
By "his" I assume you mean Oscar's. Because it's self-serving. I don't believe he didn't notice his girlfriend was not in the bed he walked around and searched under for his gun; I don't understand how an innocent person would not ascertain the location of "the love of his life"; I can't accept an innocent person blazing away at a door without knowing or trying to know who was behind it.

An appeal before a competent judge will result in a harsher sentance.
Click to expand...
I have been doing a bit more digging, and found this post by Charlie Wilkes, who could be described as something of a crime analyst. No doubt you will dismiss it, but I don't.

I agree. Pistorius has presented a defense that boggles the mind, but I have learned never to underestimate the rank stupidity of a gun nut.

Here's an incident that happened a few weeks ago in my neck of the woods:

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013...-shooting.html

The cops were incredulous. But, they talked to everyone who knew either of these people, and they all (including the victim's family) agreed that it absolutely had to be an accident. There's just no way this particular guy would shoot his GF intentionally. In addition, he called for help immediately, and everything about the scene confirmed his account of what happened.

But how the hell did he manage to do this with a revolver??? The answer, I am told, is that he cocked the hammer.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9014364&postcount=538

ETA Charlie's link has expired, but I recall reading it in amazement.
 
Last edited:
So both Icerat and Charlie Wilkes have come to the same conclusion and that's enough for you? Have a look at the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Speaking of appeals, there will be one and I'm confident the sentance will change.
 
lionking said:
By "his" I assume you mean Oscar's. Because it's self-serving. I don't believe he didn't notice his girlfriend was not in the bed he walked around and searched under for his gun; I don't understand how an innocent person would not ascertain the location of "the love of his life"; I can't accept an innocent person blazing away at a door without knowing or trying to know who was behind it.

An appeal before a competent judge will result in a harsher sentance.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
So both Icerat and Charlie Wilkes have come to the same conclusion and that's enough for you? Have a look at the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Speaking of appeals, there will be one and I'm confident the sentance will change.
Click to expand...
I unashamedly admit to taking Charlie seriously for my own very good reasons. He is less convinced than me about Pistorius after rereading his few posts. The more I dig the more I like Pistorius' story. I don't care about his sentence, but I am very interested in understanding how the majority can get sucked in by crooked prosecutors, as we have here.
ETA look at what happened to Lindy Chamberlain, more of the same, prosecution doesn't believe her so they manufacture blood in a car boot. I am not sure why you Australians are spared these monumental cock ups, we have 7 in forty years in Little New Zealand.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
By "his" I assume you mean Oscar's. Because it's self-serving.

<snip>
Click to expand...


I don't have any strong feelings about his guilt or innocence one way or another, but just as a general observation it seems to me that anyone's testimony about their innocence can seem to be "self-serving" when the appropriate prior assumptions are made.

Even when they aren't, for that matter. It's sort of a truism.
 
Samson said:
I unashamedly admit to taking Charlie seriously for my own very good reasons. He is less convinced than me about Pistorius after rereading his few posts. The more I dig the more I like Pistorius' story.
Click to expand...


I found a picture of Oscar Pistorius' story:

0rqNgvb.jpg
 
As I understand it, this will mean the original judge re-sentencing Pistorius. Is this correct? Does anyone know the minimum (and mandatory?) sentence/s for murder in SA? Presumably he won't be out again in another year or so.
 
MikeG said:
As I understand it, this will mean the original judge re-sentencing Pistorius. Is this correct? Does anyone know the minimum (and mandatory?) sentence/s for murder in SA? Presumably he won't be out again in another year or so.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're correct - Masipa will handle the sentencing if she's available. The minimum is 15 years for DE. Oscar will get credit for time served and Roux can argue for mitigating circumstances so it'll be interesting to see what the final number comes to.
 
Justice for Reeva at last. He's a murderer and Masipa is an incompetent judge. She will be directed to make sure the sentence is appropriate this time, that's for sure.
 
15 years will be good to see. Hell, even 10. Far better than the ridiculous slap over the wrist he got last time. This is a good day for the SA justice system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom