Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[MontagK505]

What I mean is if I wake up in the night to go to the bathroom I don't turn on the lights because it disturbs me. I find the light wakes me too much and I can never get back to sleep. If I keep things down with just a phone light for example, not such a problem. Even before mobile phones I'd tend to go pee just with lights from outside windows rather than turn on a bathroom light.

For me it's strange that people do turn on lights

I see your point. Likewise, I find it strange that a man who claims he heard a intruder would not stop and verify where his lover is. I find it difficult to imagine that while Oscar brings the fans in he never notices the empty bed. To this you add the mans character and the idea that he killed her in a rage seems much more likely.

 

[icerat]

I see your point. Likewise, I find it strange that a man who claims he heard a intruder would not stop and verify where his lover is.

As I've pointed out before, all you need to do to accept this is have Oscar take the same view you do below. If he, like you, can't imagine he wouldn't notice her getting out of bed, then there's no need to verify because he knows where she is.

I find it difficult to imagine that while Oscar brings the fans in he never notices the empty bed.

The fact the prosecution never seemed to put much effort in to challenging the idea it was too dark for him to see suggests to me that it may in fact have been too dark for him to see. I would think if it wasn't then it would be a fairly easy thing to setup and prove.

 

[Samson]

I agree with this given that it would mean he had materially falsified his account of the night (although I guess an innocent Pistorius might have suppressed the argument thing in order not to make things look bad ).

Anglo, she ate something around midnight, but I'm not sure whether
1. She did it discreetly, leaving the problem of security disabling, or
2. Oscar concealed it because
a. There was an argument
b. He figured it was more detail than necessary, and no one could find out they/she ate .
I have not followed closely enough to be certain of anything but that she ate around midnight due to the gastric evidence.

 

[MontagK505]

An excerpt from the closing arguments:

The state says that even if Pistorius did not mean to he shoot his girlfriend, even in his own account of events, he meant to shoot someone, proceeding to do so with a powerful weapon and lethal ammunition. Nel has argued that should not only constitute murder, but pre-meditated murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence in South Africa.

 

[GlennB]

The fact the prosecution never seemed to put much effort in to challenging the idea it was too dark for him to see suggests to me that it may in fact have been too dark for him to see. I would think if it wasn't then it would be a fairly easy thing to setup and prove.

If it's that dark why doesn't he notice the supposed light from her phone?

 

[icerat]

If it's that dark why doesn't he notice the supposed light from her phone?

Unlike apparently many people on this forum, he doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. At least not that I know of.

 

[icerat]

Anglo, she ate something around midnight, but I'm not sure whether
1. She did it discreetly, leaving the problem of security disabling, or
2. Oscar concealed it because
a. There was an argument
b. He figured it was more detail than necessary, and no one could find out they/she ate .
I have not followed closely enough to be certain of anything but that she ate around midnight due to the gastric evidence.

And you can't be certain of that either, as defence experts testified and half the Amanda Knox thread is about.

 

[MontagK505]

Unlike apparently many people on this forum, he doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. At least not that I know of.

Apparently like some people on this forum, Oscar is supposed to be deaf and blind and yet can find his way down a dark passage toward danger while he is in extreme fear for his life.

(note how sarcasm sounds and how effective it is in a argument)

 

[Belgian thought]

Apparently like some people on this forum, Oscar is supposed to be deaf and blind and yet can find his way down a dark passage toward danger while he is in extreme fear for his life.

(note how sarcasm sounds and how effective it is in a argument)

What gets me is his defence saying he did not remember what the type of bullet he was using etc. - even with video evidence showing him firing it and discussing it, he did not remember the name at the trial.

"Pistorius claimed not to know what a "zombie stopper" bullet was, despite a video appearing on YouTube showing him firing one at a shooting range and discussing it with an acquiantance

Roux says Pistorius was asked the question out of all context, and was confused - it is plausible he wouldn't remember the name, says the lawyer.

The video was "unfortunate", he says. He also blames "severe depression" for why Pistorius may have a poor memory..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...r-Pistorius-trial-closing-arguments-live.html

These little titbits make me doubt his testimony so much more.

 

[Azrael 5]

Is there any possibility he will escape prison and if not what's his likely sentence?

 

[GlennB]

Apparently like some people on this forum, Oscar is supposed to be deaf and blind and yet can find his way down a dark passage toward danger while he is in extreme fear for his life.

(note how sarcasm sounds and how effective it is in a argument)

And also manages to plug the fan into a plug-board which is among a tangle of stuff on the floor. If it's totally dark how can he do this while missing the light from her cellphone? If it isn't totally dark then, er, perhaps there's a light on?

The bedside table on the balcony side certainly has a bedlamp on it.

 

[Samson]

And you can't be certain of that either, as defence experts testified and half the Amanda Knox thread is about.

It is a scientific fallacy in either case that this evidence is unreliable. The research is dead easy, and conclusive that in Reeva's cases there is a high degree of certainty that death occurred well inside four hours of eating, and in Meredith Kercher's case, well inside 2 hours of eating.
I can provide the links if there is any interest.
That is why I am interested whether Reeva could eat without Oscar knowing.

I should add that your analysis has persuaded me that Oscar made antragic but honest mistake, particularly if his original account generally withstood the scrutiny of the court.
Everyone assumes it is perfectly normal to shoot a girlfriend after an argument, yet it is incredibly uncommon. Yet even here in New Zealand people are often defending the shooting of burglars in court. Multiply by 20 for SA and it is a much better explanation for Reeva's death.
The Valentine card is a clincher if it is real.

 

[SezMe]

Do we know the position and phase of the moon on the night and time in question. Also how cloudy it was.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Is there any possibility he will escape prison and if not what's his likely sentence?

There is a possibility, but I wouldn't put my money on it. I would go with manslaughter and whatever that sentence mandates.

 

[Azrael 5]

There is a possibility, but I wouldn't put my money on it. I would go with manslaughter and whatever that sentence mandates.

Is Manslaughter a SoutH African get out clause for murder? Whether he knew it was Reeva or not ,he certainly knew someone was in the bathroom and deliberately shot them.

 

[MontagK505]

It is a scientific fallacy in either case that this evidence is unreliable. The research is dead easy, and conclusive that in Reeva's cases there is a high degree of certainty that death occurred well inside four hours of eating, and in Meredith Kercher's case, well inside 2 hours of eating.
I can provide the links if there is any interest.
That is why I am interested whether Reeva could eat without Oscar knowing.

I should add that your analysis has persuaded me that Oscar made antragic but honest mistake, particularly if his original account generally withstood the scrutiny of the court.
Everyone assumes it is perfectly normal to shoot a girlfriend after an argument, yet it is incredibly uncommon. Yet even here in New Zealand people are often defending the shooting of burglars in court. Multiply by 20 for SA and it is a much better explanation for Reeva's death.
The Valentine card is a clincher if it is real.

I don't believe anyone assumes it's normal to shoot a girlfriend after an argument. With Oscars established temperament it certainly is plausible.

 

[MontagK505]

Is there any possibility he will escape prison and if not what's his likely sentence?

It depends what the court believes. The prosecution has made the claim that even if Oscars story is correct, he is still a murderer under SA law. If the shooting is ruled as accidental he might get off with probation for mis-use of a firearm or the SA equivalent. This seems unlikely, because he did pull the trigger four times. This moves it into the intent-to-kill realm as I understand the prosecution's case.

 

[Samson]

I don't believe anyone assumes it's normal to shoot a girlfriend after an argument. With Oscars established temperament it certainly is plausible.

Let us imagine a few headlines.
1. Oscar Pistorius accidentally shoots girlfriend mistaking her for an intruder at 3am.
2. Nicole Simpson is killed by an unknown stranger while consorting with a lover. A grieving OJ Simpson vows to track down the killer.
3. Meredith Kercher slaughtered by room mate and her lover with the help of a black serial burglar.
4. Oscar Pistorius shoots his girlfriend in cold blood at 3 am.

The trick is to identify what is likely, and see if facts fit.

Headline 1. combines an event that is likely (in SA), and the facts roughly fit (Icerat and Roux)

Headlines 2 3 and 4 are quite preposterous and the facts in each case also are compelling that they did not happen.

 

[lionking]

Let us imagine a few headlines.
1. Oscar Pistorius accidentally shoots girlfriend mistaking her for an intruder.
2. Nicole Simpson is killed by an unknown stranger while consorting with a lover. A grieving OJ Simpson vows to track down the killer.
3. Meredith Kercher slaughtered by room mate and her lover with the help of a black serial burglar.
4. Oscar Pistorius shoots his girlfriend in cold blood.

The trick is to identify what is likely, and see if facts fit.

Headline 1. combines an event that is likely (in SA), and the facts roughly fit (Icerat and Roux)

Headlines 2 3 and 4 are quite preposterous and the facts in each case also are compelling that they did not happen.

4. is not at all preposterous. OP has well reported anger issues, and his girlfriend was sacred of him. What's preposterous is his changing story, and his claim not to notice her not in the bed he walked around.

 

[MontagK505]

And also manages to plug the fan into a plug-board which is among a tangle of stuff on the floor. If it's totally dark how can he do this while missing the light from her cellphone? If it isn't totally dark then, er, perhaps there's a light on?

The bedside table on the balcony side certainly has a bedlamp on it.

The other thing that bothers me is that she has transversed the bedroom, the passage way and the bathroom on her way to the toilet, the bedroom door is locked, she knows there are no intruders between her and Oscar. So why doesn't she call out "Honey, I'm in the loo" when Oscar starts screaming?