Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[GlennB]

With the risk of going too much 'Columbo' in speculation.

How long before the shooting was the 'going full comando' against dishwasher/washing machine incident?
Could that have been an attempt in getting an alibi for the mistaken identity during the shooting?

November 2012, it seems, and he jokingly tweeted the incident. But setting up an alibi in that way sounds beyond bizarre to me.

 

[erwinl]

November 2012, it seems, and he jokingly tweeted the incident. But setting up an alibi in that way sounds beyond bizarre to me.

You're right. That is way too early for something like that.
If it would have been just before the shooting incident, it would be something else, but not now.

And I said I was maybe going a bit too much 'Columbo'

 

[anglolawyer]

You're right. That is way too early for something like that.
If it would have been just before the shooting incident, it would be something else, but not now.

And I said I was maybe going a bit too much 'Columbo'

You can never go too much Columbo. The king of detectives. Once on the scene he would have darted straight over to the fan, ignoring the body altogether, asking the officer in the room if this was how it was found and noticing that the cord was not the way it would be if it had been brought in from outside. Wait a second ...

 

[erwinl]

You can never go too much Columbo. The king of detectives. Once on the scene he would have darted straight over to the fan, ignoring the body altogether, asking the officer in the room if this was how it was found and noticing that the cord was not the way it would be if it had been brought in from outside. Wait a second ...

 

[MontagK505]

With the risk of going too much 'Columbo' in speculation.

How long before the shooting was the 'going full comando' against dishwasher/washing machine incident?
Could that have been an attempt in getting an alibi for the mistaken identity during the shooting?

If he were that premeditated, he would have arranged her murder in a much more convincing manner. This looks more like a rage killing with a hastily contrived cover story.

 

[trustbutverify]

November 2012, it seems, and he jokingly tweeted the incident. But setting up an alibi in that way sounds beyond bizarre to me.

Yea; beyond the pale.

 

[icerat]

And we're back and he's not (clinically) nuts.

 

[Rolfe]

I was discussing this case with a professor of (Scots) law who lives in South Africa for half of each year. He seems fairly certain that Pistorius is as guilty as hell, in the sense that he knew damn well it was Reeva in the bathroom. This seems to be the general public opinion where he lives.

I told him about this discussion and he was very appreciative of the comments of Skwinty and others who have explained SA law to us. He also emphasised that even if Pistorius thought it might be a burglar in the toilet, he is still guilty of murder. The distinction really only applies at sentencing.

Rolfe.

 

[MikeG]

..........He also emphasised that even if Pistorius thought it might be a burglar in the toilet, he is still guilty of murder. The distinction really only applies at sentencing.

Rolfe.

Yet another Rolfe statement of fact which is anything but. It is perfectly possible that Pistorius thought it was a burglar, and is found guilty of culpable homicide. Or acquitted. Rolfe's post allows no possibility of either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does SA allow people to shoot someone not directly threatening them? Remind me, thanks.

 

[Myriad]

Yet another Rolfe statement of fact which is anything but. It is perfectly possible that Pistorius thought it was a burglar, and is found guilty of culpable homicide. Or acquitted. Rolfe's post allows no possibility of either.

Rolfe's statement of fact is true provided that Rolfe spoke to a professor of Scots law who lives in South Africa for half of each year, and that professor did say the things Rolfe reports.

The professor could be wrong.

Is it not possible for a person to be in fact guilty of a crime, and yet still be acquitted or convicted of a lesser crime due to lack of sufficient evidence? If so, then the professor's claim does not preclude any such outcome.

 

[Rolfe]

The professor stated that even if Pistorius genuinely thought that he was shooting at a burglar, the circumstances by his own admission still amounted to the crime of murder under SA law. I said I was aware of that, thanks to the local legal information helpfully provided in this thread by Skwinty among others.

It may be that the case develops in a different direction, but the legal position of someone recklessly firing at an unidentified person who was not directly threatening him seems to be quite clear, under SA law. If Oscar had killed an actual burglar in these circumstances, it would still have been murder.

The professor personally believes that Pistorius knew it was Reeva he was shooting at. He remarked that pretty much everyone in his social circle in SA is of that opinion. The conversation continued with some fairly frank revelations about sexist attitudes and double standards in SA society, which are not really relevant to the subject of the thread.

That is merely as accurate an account of our conversation as I can remember. The conversation occurred over a leisurely lunch on the way back to Edinburgh after a 2-hour interview with a couple of senior detectives from Police Scotland in relation to our work on the Lockerbie case. Given that the professor had returned from SA only a few days previously, it was natural that he should turn the conversation to the Pistorius case - and the Shrien Dewani one.

I fail to see what can possibly be declared not to be fact in that account.

Rolfe.

 

[katy_did]

I think the Professor's wrong because in Pistorius' account, he believed his life was in danger when he shot. If that's true then it could be culpable homicide, but it's not murder. That's as I understand it anyway.

 

[Rolfe]

I think we went into these technicalities earlier in the thread. He may be saying he believed his life was in danger, but he has to persuade the judge that's true and not just a claim he's making to get off. Word on the streets seems to be that this will be a very hard sell indeed under the admitted circumstances.

Word on the streets seems to be that everyone thinks he knew it was Reeva, mind you.

Rolfe.

 

[katy_did]

True, but I thought the Professor was saying the circumstances as Pistorius described them amounted to murder under SA law, even if he genuinely thought he was shooting a burglar. Obviously this isn't the case, since in Pistorius' account he feared for his life. It's true of course that if the judge finds any part of his story not credible (whether it be the "I thought it was a burglar" part or the "I feared for my life" part), she could then find him guilty of murder.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

What is the schedule for the rest of the trial? Is it back to an every day thing now until the end?

 

[newyorkguy]

What I don't understand is, how Pistorius thinks he can convince anyone he reasonably feared for his life since a) whatever method he used to deduce it was a burglar was obviously flawed (since it WASN'T a burglar) and b) the 'unknown' person in the bathroom was making no threats and had essentially locked themselves in. Strange behavior for a murderous burglar. Would a reasonable man choose to fire shots into a locked bathroom, killing the occupant, in those circumstances?

Mind you, here in the states, in a place called South Florida, Pistorius might have an excellent chance of getting acquitted. From what I've read he does not have a great chance in South Africa.

I really think he should start pondering a plea deal on the condition he gets some credible shot at parole in some distant year. Like the detectives say when they're trying to coax a confession: "Why not make this right? You want to help yourself...now's the time to do it."

 

[Puppycow]

What I don't understand is, how Pistorius thinks he can convince anyone he reasonably feared for his life since a) whatever method he used to deduce it was a burglar was obviously flawed (since it WASN'T a burglar) and b) the 'unknown' person in the bathroom was making no threats and had essentially locked themselves in. Strange behavior for a murderous burglar. Would a reasonable man choose to fire shots into a locked bathroom, killing the occupant, in those circumstances?

Not in my opinion. Not even close to being a reasonable course of action.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Not in my opinion. Not even close to being a reasonable course of action.

It's so unreasonable that it's basically proof that he murdered her in a fit of rage. If he had genuinely thought it was a burglar, he'd have taken a careful position outside the door, had his gun at the ready, and phoned for the police.

If he had murdered Reeva in a cold, calculated way, he'd have not fired at her through the bathroom door, because the chances of actually hitting her fatally were not sure enough to be worthwhile.

So the only explanation that makes sense is that he fired through the door in rage after she locked herself in during or after a fight.

 

[The Don]

It's so unreasonable that it's basically proof that he murdered her in a fit of rage. If he had genuinely thought it was a burglar, he'd have taken a careful position outside the door, had his gun at the ready, and phoned for the police.

If he had murdered Reeva in a cold, calculated way, he'd have not fired at her through the bathroom door, because the chances of actually hitting her fatally were not sure enough to be worthwhile.

So the only explanation that makes sense is that he fired through the door in rage after she locked herself in during or after a fight.

While I agree that this is by far the most likely set of circumstances, IMO it's not impossible that OP, fueled by bravado (and maybe some booze) and his short fuse did feel like taking on a "burglar" without taking the much more sensible course of action you outlined.

Regardless, IMO, he deserves to be imprisoned for a long time.