peterms Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Guilty as sin as I see it. A few things to note: he now claims he didn't have his 'legs' on, went to get a fan or some such as then heard noise from the bathroom so decided it MUST be an intruder and opened fire (presumably before going back to the bedroom and seeing GF was not there). So: a. Did he take his gun with him to go and get this fan? Seems a bit strange, if he keeps his gun by his bed in his bedroom. b. would he not think to check it's not his GF in the bathroom, a far more lilely scenario than an intruder? c. Why would an intruder be in the bathroom?! d. Why the feck would an intruder be LOCKED in the bathroom. e. Why had no alarms gone off if there was an intruder - we're told these places have very high security. Is there a cricket bat with her blood/DNA on it? Does she have any bruising consistent with a cricket bat attack? Did the neighbours hear earlier disturbances from the house - I think we've heard yes on that Have the police been called to domestics at this address between these 2 people before - I think we've heard yes on that too. If this guy gets off with anything less than murder, the prosection want 'shooting'. His account is that he went to get the fan, then heard the noise, then got the gun, which we understand was kept under the bed or under the pillow. ...He said they went to bed and fell asleep. He woke to close a sliding door and get a fan and went out on to the balcony, he said. At that point he heard a noise in the bathroom and felt a "sense of terror" rush through him. He was scared and didn't switch on the light, he said. He was acutely aware of violent crime and had received death threats in the past, and had been a victim of crime in the past, he said. For that reason he kept a 9mm pistol under the bed. He said he got his gun and moved towards the bathroom, and screamed at the "intruder" to get out of the house and for Steenkamp to call the police. He thought she was still in bed. He did not have his prosthetic legs on, and said he felt vulnerable for both himself and Steenkamp. For that reason, he said, he fired through the bathroom door. He then saw that Steenkamp was not in bed, he said. That was when he realised she could have been in the bathroom, he said. The bathroom door was locked. He said he went to the balcony and called for help, and then put his legs on. He said he opened the toilet door by smashing it with a cricket bat. Steenkamp was alive inside, slumped over, he said. He took her to the bathroom, called paramedics and tried to carry her downstairs to get help, he said... So I suppose the questions will be about the credibility of hearing intruders, returning to the room where she lay sleeping, finding the gun in the dark, deciding not to wake her to warn her and get her to call the police, failing to notice she wasn't there, going to investigate without putting on his legs and so making himself more vulnerable, shouting a warning at the supposed intruder in the toilet but Reeva in the toilet not responding to these shouted threats to say it was only her... I should think few people would find that credible, though it's not impossible. Blood on the bat in itself proves nothing. He says he used it to break down the door, so it could easily have come into contact with all the blood that would have been present. Presumably they will easily tell whether the bat was used to hit her, which would be a very different thing. It is possible that an intruder could lock themselves in the toilet - they would probably be as scared as the householder. And the alarm not going off means nothing - he gave an interview last year where he discussed the possibility of security guards being in on a burglary, so it's plausible that someone with that mindset wouldn't place all their trust in alarm systems. It seems like the whole thing rests on whether that account is to be believed, in the absence of definite proof. If the bat was used to hit her, that would seem to undermine his case, as he hasn't mentioned it. And if the reports of noisy arguments and possible messages from another man on her Ipad are correct, then his account of a happy evening shared by two people very much in love would start to look threadbare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 ...his account of a happy evening shared by two people very much in love would start to look threadbare. It was Valentine's Day, so that seems less likely than, say, an argument about whether he should have bought her two dozen red roses instead of just the one dozen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 19, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 19, 2013 His defence appears to be that, rather than being a murderer, that he's a paranoid idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 19, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 19, 2013 His defence appears to be that, rather than being a murderer, that he's a paranoid idiot. The two are not mutually exclusive, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 just seems like a utter mess this case i dont think all those coincidences could have happened to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 19, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted February 19, 2013 if he didn't have his legs on how did he go out to the balcony to shut the door? If he didn't turn the light on how did he get his gun? If he thought that the intruder was there to kill him rather than rob him why had the intruder opted to lock themselves in the bathroom rather than er kill him? More holes in his defence than in his bathroom door. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 All signs point to guilty, which means he will probably get away with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 ^^ Agreed. The account he gives is pretty unlikely but raises enough uncertainty for that pesky "reasonable doubt" threshold he has to clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 What's the LEAST he can get? Manslaughter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 The least I suppose is "Case dismissed" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I know Coldplay did their best but this really has taken the shine off London 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 If you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Pretty sure he's on the cover of my official blu ray 4 DVD set memorabilia item that I had for xmas A farkin murderer on the front cover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baselayers Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 To be fair to Jenny, if the guy was a bit of a word removed, you'd expect it more. But your point reminds me of when Fritzl was caught and it was all over the news. They showed some old home videos and the reporter said "maybe the most chilling thing about these videos, is that they seem so normal" Made me laugh. Was she expecting him to be running around kidnapping women and raping them in those videos?! Yeah, I was having a pop at the 'he seemed so normal/he looked so normal' kind of quotes/interviews/reporting, rather than our lovely Jen. Because, as she says, he seemed nice, but, how wrong she was (probably!). he's not been found guilty yet!ut everything despite the eyes I see your point guys, and in general i agree. It's just that you know you can generally get at least a vibe from someone...as to whether there are not quite right. But with him, nothing at all, he was so humble and relaxed about everything, i suppose i put his anger after losing down to just pure competitive spirit and just hating losing. It seems that it was more than that. I suppose some people have two personalities going on and are able to switch instantly. One thing i do know is Oakley are sort of pissed lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'd imagine he's had everything on a plate his whole life and nobody ever say NO to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'd imagine he's had everything on a plate his whole life . yeah having no legs must have been a right blessing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 just seems like a utter mess this case i dont think all those coincidences could have happened to be honest Why? I was initially very skeptical of the intruder defence. I still am. But the guy is, even in SA and even during a trial by media, innocent until proven guilty. Whilst that particular set of "coincidences" as you call them are highly unlikely, they don't seem all that ridiculous to me. It's a big world, crazy shit happens. This probably wouldn't make the top 10 craziest shit to happen this year and it's only February. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Interesting piece from wiki, seems the boy has form - In 2009 Pistorius was arrested and charged with common assault by South African police for slamming a door on a woman at his home. The charges were later dropped. Edited February 19, 2013 by CI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Interesting piece from wiki, seems the boy has form - In 2009 Pistorius was arrested and charged with common assault by South African police for slamming a door on a woman at his home. The charges were later dropped. Means nothing. I once did something "similar" to a then girlfriend during a drunken row. Went to slam the door behind me, she stuck her arm in the way, genuine accident, A+E. Nothing broken, all was well, we were together for a long time after that. Reports of supposed domestic incidents do NOT make Oscar Pistorius a murderer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts