All Articles All Articles

DennisLoo.com

Oscar Pistorius, Reeva Steenkamp, and the Locked Toilet Room Door

Oscar Pistorius, Reeva Steenkamp, and the Locked Toilet Room Door

By Dennis Loo (2/20/13)

Updates at the end

Oscar Pistorius’ affidavit delivered in court yesterday (Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013) by his lawyer makes no sense.

He hears a noise in the middle of the night and gets his 9 mm that he keeps under the bed. He doesn’t, however, check to see if his girlfriend Reeva is in bed with him, nor does he inform her that he’s going to investigate the noise.

What does someone do when they are worried that there is an intruder in the house? Check on their loved one(s) first? Not in Pistorius’ case apparently.

Then he says that he went to the bathroom and sees that the bathroom window is open and sees that the toilet room door is closed.

He yells out to the unknown person he hears making noise in the toilet but allegedly gets no response. He yells to Steenkamp to call the police and then fires four times through the bathroom door at the person in the toilet room because he is terrified of an intruder who is hiding in the toilet room behind a (locked) door.

Now that we all have the picture, a multiple choice test question:

Who locks a toilet room door?

A. An intruder who wants his or her privacy in the toilet

B. A girlfriend who wants to temporarily get away from an out of control boyfriend

C. A girlfriend who doesn’t realize that her boyfriend is so crazed and/or murderous that he will shoot her through the bathroom door four times

D. B and C

Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp: Poster Couple for Gun Ownership

***

3/24/14 Update:

Texts from Reeva to Oscar were introduced into evidence in Pistorius' trial today. They paint a picture of Pistorius and his relationship to Steenkamp that is consistent with other witnesses' testimony about Pistorius as hot tempered, self-centered, insecure, and abusive, particularly to women. While his behavior scared her, clearly Reeva had no idea that Oscar was capable of murdering her in cold blood.

The texts include the following:

"I get snapped at and told my accents and my voice are annoying. i touch your neck to show u i care you tell me to stop. Stop chewing gum. do this don't do that," read part of one long text.

"I'm scared of you sometimes and how you snap at me... I do everything to make u happy and to not say anything to rock the boat with u. you do everything to throw tantrums in front of people,"

One text sent on Jan. 27, 2013 read, "u are very quick to act cold and offish when you're unhappy... every 5 seconds i hear how u dated another chick," she wrote.

***

4/8/14 Update:

Oscar says he was only "trying to protect" Reeva when he shot four times through the locked toilet room door. Should we believe that someone who claims that he did not check to make sure that Reeva was still in bed with him before he got his gun and then went into the bathroom, was actually "trying to protect" her? If you hear a possible intruder and you're "trying to protect" someone who you love from that possible intruder, isn't the very first thing that you would do is check on that person and their whereabouts to make sure that they are safe and alert them that there may be danger? Just what kind of a protector are you if you don't first of all check on where your loved one is so that you can protect them?

See also 3/21/14 article: Oscar Pistorius Covers His Ears

4/9/14 article Oscar Pistorius' Pathetic Agony.

Comments   

 
+12 # Buck 2013-12-11 06:23
I totally agree with this and have said it over and over. The door was locked. Case in point.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-12 # Pamela Valemont 2013-12-11 22:01
1.Was this a lock and close device, similar to type used in public toilets? 2. Reeva may have gone in and locked the door to answer a message from an ex-lover on Valentine's Day. Locking the door is just a secretive thing to do when you are about to do something that you don't want your boyfriend to know you are doing. It is quite possible this is what she was doing and Oscar overheard her messaging another man. He would have been suspicious that she was doing this as why else would she want to hide from him in the middle of the night to do it? She may have gone to the toilet as an excuse to do this, carefully taking her phone with her without Oscar noticing (or so she thought) and even tried to cover the sound of her messaging by urinating in the toilet, which makes a noise, particularly if you want it to. The jet stream can be projected directly into the water which makes a loud noise.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+11 # blaz 2014-04-10 03:12
only one problem with your story...there would be a record of this messaging, or records that she was a using the mobile at that particular time..
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # farai 2014-04-13 01:42
toilet doors should not necessarily self-lock, for safety reasons. If they did, an incompetent person, eg a child, would be looked in there forever. So # 1 is probably out.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # Dennis Loo 2013-12-11 23:19
Is there any evidence that R had a secret boyfriend or that she had her cell phone in the toilet with her? Neighbors reported a very loud fight between Reeva and Oscar that evening. Your hypothesis doesn't have any evidence to sustain it. Reeva was apparently very devoted to Oscar and there's been no hints of a furtive affair.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-6 # Pamela Valemont 2013-12-12 01:38
I am mentioning it as a possibility. I don't know what the phone tapes will reveal when it comes to trial time. However, I think it is not at all unnatural for admirers to send Valentine's Day messages to ex-lovers, especially if they are still in love with the girl. It is not unusual for male gay friends to send such messages to their girl "friends" either. Reeva had just met with an ex for coffee, and Oscar had repeatedly phoned her during their meeting, evidence of his not being happy with their getting together at all. Is it not possible that her ex sent her a Valentine's Day message, just because he still loved her, maybe even just as a very dear friend for whom he had a great deal of admiration? We won't know anything about the phone calls until they are revealed in court. She definitely had her cell phone in the toilet with her and there were two more cell phones outside the toilet door. And yes, there was a fight reported earlier.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-5 # Dennis Loo 2013-12-12 02:19
Thanks for the further info. If your speculation, which the phone records will either sustain or not, is correct, then she might've been seeking comfort from her ex. She met him on V-day? That's odd if true.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-11 # Pamela Valemont 2013-12-12 02:51
I think she met him the day before from memory. He's a really nice guy. I put a pic of him in my book. Dark hair, brown eyes. He was devastated at the service to cast her ashes into the sea. I had the distinct feeling he felt somehow responsible, and maybe that was because he thought he may have contributed to whatever transpired between the couple subsequently. To be quite honest, I think there are not too many boyfriends who would see your having coffee with an ex you used to live with as "innocent" which is the way he described it. I am not saying Reeva is to blame; but she did know Oscar was jealous and she was jealous of him too, from all accounts.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+19 # Valentine 2014-03-04 14:38
Oscar shot Reeva in a fit of rage (think about road rage) & leave ex boy friends out. He is a gun crazy bastard.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+11 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-11 00:18
Agreed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+14 # geoff clark 2014-03-06 23:18
Poor Reeva used that Rest Room as a Panic Room , pure & simple ,
the rest is Simple , repercussions of 1's action's ". Shame on you Oscar , Call her a Taxi , a UFO , Don't Blast her Sweet Life Out of Existence". karma is in Effect"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-11 00:19
Panic room is a good label for this.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+10 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-11 00:19
Oscar's Valentine's Day Massacre.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+11 # Dick Hurtz 2014-03-17 12:08
1) How many couples lock the toilet door when they are alone in the house together ESPECIALLY if the other person is asleep?
2) Had she used the WC? If not then why was she in there? If she flushed before the shooting he would have realized it was probably her
3) If Pistorius flushed to protect her modesty,he would be flushing away the defense's evidence & tampering with a crime scene
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+8 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-17 21:34
Quoting Dick Hurtz:
1) How many couples lock the toilet door when they are alone in the house together ESPECIALLY if the other person is asleep?


Absolutely. In order to buy Oscar's account of events you have to assume that he acted in a bizarre manner, and assume that Reeva did as well. Clearly she locked the door because she was trying to get away from an out of control boyfriend. For Oscar's account that he thought he was shooting an intruder in a locked toilet room to be true, you also have to assume that he didn't recognize his own girlfriend's screams after he started shooting her. As everyone knows, he shot FOUR TIMES.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # loulee 2014-04-07 19:54
The toilet was full of blood.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Frankie O 2014-04-10 05:32
im not saying your defending murder, but even if she was talking to her ex, or hiding it from Oscar, none of the reasons stated above from anyone should give him a reason to shoot and kill his girlfri...oops, I mean "intruder"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Ashley Skelton 2014-10-21 14:13
Quoting Dick Hurtz:
1) How many couples lock the toilet door when they are alone in the house together ESPECIALLY if the other person is asleep?
2) Had she used the WC? If not then why was she in there? If she flushed before the shooting he would have realized it was probably her
3) If Pistorius flushed to protect her modesty,he would be flushing away the defense's evidence & tampering with a crime scene

Its sad rest in peace to a beautiful women God will handle that demon who did that to her my prayers are out to her family and friends and she is just soooo gorgeous she is going Tu be and even beautifully loving angel to watch over us all.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Defender 2014-03-20 22:57
Or maybe E:
Reeva locked the door when she heard Oscar shouting at what he thought was an intruder - to protect herself from the intruder.
She had once before nearly been the victim of a violent robbery when her and her mother were at home one day and their house was broken into. Reeva said that experience scarred her for life and friends said she was always worried about it happening again.
It is possible that life dealt them both an incredibly cruel hand. Oscar, shooting at an intruder to protect himself and girlfriend. Reeva, trusting that Oscar would take care of the situation and locked herself in the toilet and didn't scream (or tried not to) - so as not to alert the 'intruder' as to where she was.
But this doesn't account for witnesses hearing a woman scream.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-21 04:20
Oscar knew when he shot and killed Reeva that he was shooting at her. You're right, your E version is contradicted by the witnesses hearing a loud argument and a woman screaming. She was screaming while being shot until the kill shot.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-10 # Defender 2014-03-21 14:13
But can you be so sure - beyond reasonable doubt? I admit, my gut feeling says something is amiss because Pistorius seems like an intelligent, focused person who is unlikely to have made such a 'dumb' mistake. If he did, I can't imagine how he must feel. OTOH, if he's guilty, something must have provoked such an action. Perhaps Reeva wasn't the sweet, loving person that the media makes her out to be. It doesn't justify the crime, but she might have known how to hurt Oscar way more than any bullets could - maybe it was retaliation. If a crime has been committed, I think at the very least it is a crime of passion with extenuating circumstances. I don't believe OP is a cold blooded killer. Something must have pushed him over the edge. But yes, it doesn't justify it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-21 14:53
Quoting Defender:
But can you be so sure - beyond reasonable doubt? I admit, my gut feeling says something is amiss because Pistorius seems like an intelligent, focused person who is unlikely to have made such a 'dumb' mistake.

The physical evidence alone - esp. the LOCKED toilet room door, the loud argument and screams from a woman before and after the shots began - are not only beyond a reasonable doubt but are definitive. This was no mistake - although surely OP was in a state of extreme rage when he did this that he regretted after the fact. But he doesn't regret it enough to honor the woman he claims that he loved and loves by owning up to his actions.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+9 # lilli 2014-04-12 12:42
How dare you blame a dead woman or even hint there was anything she did to bring this on. There's no excuse. No one is perfect. So what? He's alive and she is not.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-5 # Defender 2014-03-21 14:43
cont. from previous comment (apologies, but trial fascinates me :-? ). The big question for me is this: Reeva was obviously a very intelligent and independent woman - why didn't she just nip it in the bud, at the first sign of trouble in the relationship? If she was afraid of Oscar - or at any time afraid for her life - what was she doing there in the first place? And why didn't she see it coming? Regardless of Oscar's history, his actions were very 'out of character'. I know people way more stroppy than Oscar but who would never hurt anyone this way. In fact, they're the kind of people who would even risk their lives to save someone while most people would just stand aside and watch. Anyway, that's enough speculation from me.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-21 14:58
Quoting Defender:
The big question for me is this: Reeva was obviously a very intelligent and independent woman - why didn't she just nip it in the bud, at the first sign of trouble in the relationship? If she was afraid of Oscar - or at any time afraid for her life - what was she doing there in the first place?

Remember, this was a relatively new relationship of only 3 mos. OP was a famous national hero so she'd be likely to temporarily overlook some things because of that. Women who are beaten or murdered by their boyfriends or husbands are not responsible for they're being beaten or murdered. The onus is not on them to have "seen the signs," or ended the relationship. The onus is on the man who did these despicable acts. You have to pay attention to the physical evidence rather than what your gut tells you. That is what happens in a trial when the evidence is what you must go on, not what you may want to believe or find hard to believe.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-21 15:02
Quoting Defender:
Reeva was obviously a very intelligent and independent woman - why didn't she just nip it in the bud, at the first sign of trouble in the relationship? And why didn't she see it coming? Regardless of Oscar's history, his actions were very 'out of character'.

This was a relatively new relationship of only 3 mos. OP was a national hero so she'd be likely to temporarily overlook some things because of that. Women who are beaten or murdered by their boyfriends or husbands are not responsible for their being beaten or murdered. The onus is not on them to have "seen the signs," or ended the relationship. The onus is on the man who did these despicable acts. You have to pay attention to the physical evidence rather than what your gut tells you. That is what happens in a trial when the evidence is what you must go on, not what you may want to believe or find hard to believe. U have to take someone's history into account v. "Regardless of Oscar's history..."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # blaz 2014-04-10 03:25
I would be yelling that it was me in the toilet when I heard him shouting and knowing his penchant for guns...the door was locked..she didn't need to fear an intruder...unle ss they had a gun..
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+7 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-21 14:38
You want to be careful about believing that a murder victim in this case somehow provoked her own murder. Reeva had been dating Oscar for 3 mos. She didn't realize fully what she'd gotten into. The physical evidence, the witness testimony, and the evidence from friends and his former girlfriend all paint a picture of a gun-obsessed, trigger happy, hot-headed, macho individual. Reeva was screaming in terror. Why would she have locked herself in the toilet room in the first place? Why would Oscar NOT have checked on her in the bed if he thought there was an intruder? Why did neighbors hear a loud argument and screams before they heard gunfire? The evidence is extremely clear that he knew what he was doing when he did it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-7 # Pete 2014-03-31 11:37
People lock the door when taking a dump. Girls do? Married 8 years and my wife still locks the door for a dump. She took oscars phone with her and was reading his texts. He called out, she tried to pretend she wasn't in there reading his texts. On not hearing an answer he shot.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # julia 2014-04-24 01:38
Yes I totally agree
He snapped, she had no idea who this monster really is. :sad:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-8 # Defender 2014-03-21 16:36
When I said provoke I certainly didn't mean deserve, please don't think that :sad: . But i'd find it hard to believe Reeva was not provocative in some way. Most beautiful women are. Unfortunately, beautiful, provocative women can occasionally, even if unintentionally , remind men of their inadequacies. I'm not saying this is what happened. But Oscar does NOT have a history of gun violence - obsessed/playin g with guns, yes - but that doesn't make him a murderer. Like that slogan "Guns don't kill, it's people that do". If Oscar really wanted to kill Reeva he would have found a way, and didn't have to use a gun.
Also, for a wealthy person who has a disability and living on their own, having a gun (or even a collection) could be seen as a necessity rather than obsession. Oscar is a great athlete but probably disadvantaged in fighting/self defence - I don't know. I just think there's more to this story that what seems obvious. But of course I could be wrong.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-21 16:54
Quoting Defender:
Oscar does NOT have a history of gun violence - obsessed/playing with guns, yes - but that doesn't make him a murderer. Like that slogan "Guns don't kill, it's people that do". If Oscar really wanted to kill Reeva he would have found a way, and didn't have to use a gun.


Oscar IS a murderer. He shot his girlfriend four times, while she was screaming in terror. There's no mistaking who did this or what he knew when he was doing it. He has a history of being trigger happy and of being gun obsessed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # julia 2014-04-24 01:41
He also spoke about his "anger" issues 3 months before he MURDERED her :sigh:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # KC 2014-03-22 09:46
Okay. Apart from witnesses who say they heard arguments etc, does anyone think that the prosecution has proven anything? I think we are all agreed that none of this adds up, but apart from that, I have yet to hear or see anything that clearly contradicts OP's story even as ridiculous as it sounds. If you were on a jury you are duty bound to find on the evidence alone, your personal opinion of events doesn't count. I am sure the judge and her assistants in this case are duty bound in the same way. I would say the defence is doing a pretty good job so far even if every fibre in me is saying it doesn't make any sense. Unless OP really messes up on the stand, at this point, he looks to have a pretty good chance of getting off reasonably lightly.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-22 15:13
The evidence is overwhelmingly against OP's story. 1) As I argue in this article, his affidavit makes no sense; 2) An intruder wouldn't lock themselves in the toilet room; 3) Witnesses' testimony of hearing a loud argument and then a woman screaming and shots proves the sequence of events that they argued, she locked herself in the toilet room, they argued more and then he shot and killed her. When you say "none of this adds up" what account are you referring to?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+7 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-22 15:22
The fact that OP claims he didn't notice that Reeva was not in bed and that he didn't look to see if she was ok after he supposedly hears an intruder contradicts not only his former girlfriend's testimony about his behavior with her, but contradicts everything we know about human behavior. He of course would have checked on her at the very least to see that she was ok. His claim that he didn't is beyond believable and further shows that he knew that she was in the toilet room before he shot her.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # KC 2014-03-22 21:18
I am not disagreeing with you Dennis. That is what I meant by none of it adds up. Everything you are ponting out is what pretty much everyone is thinking. OP's version of events is just not credible. However, you are saying the evidence proves it and what I am saying is that the evidence does not, as far as I have seen so far, contradict his story. Only the witnesses who claim to have heard arguments and screaming, are giving a different version of events. I think the defense did a pretty good job on them to suggest that they may have been mistaken or they have colluded in their statements. Remember, the defense only has to plant doubt in the judges mind. Look what happened to OJ Simpson. His defense picked every shred of evidence to bits and he got off.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-22 21:44
Quoting KC:
OP's version of events is just not credible...I am not disagreeing with you Dennis. That is what I meant by none of it adds up. However...what I am saying is that the evidence does not, as far as I have seen so far, contradict his story.


A defendant can make up any story they like and the way to evaluate it is a) by evidence, physical and human testimony, and b) by comparing it to what's known about human behavior. It is here where the evidence and human behavior contradict his story, showing that he's concocted a story to explain his actions in killing Reeva. The neighbors' testimony that they heard very loud arguing, shots and screaming is by itself damning, proving that his account is fabricated. To believe his story you have to discount the fact that neighbors heard loud arguing preceding screaming and shots and you have to believe that OP "screams like a woman."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-03-23 07:53
Well I guess we will know soon enough. OP is fighting for his life, so it will be interesting to see if he is going to get up on the stand and scream like a girl. Personally, I think he is going to put on quite a display as a man who has killed the love of his life and that he is devastated by it. If he is smart, he will take all the things you have pointed out and say, 'I know it sounds crazy and I agree that it is hard to believe, but that is what happened and I would do anything in my power to rewind the events of that terrible night.'
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-23 15:30
There are a multitude of problems and contradictions in OP's version of events, but one of the more outstanding of these is that he claims to have been in love with her (he saw her as a narcissistic conquest for himself so his "love" was really a love of himself) yet he failed to do the most elementary thing that one would do if one cared about, let alone loved, someone: make sure that she was alright and in bed with him before he allegedly left the room to defend her and himself against the alleged intruder. In other words, his own account has a fundamental contradiction at its heart. He also has to square his alleged love for her with the fact that he can't distinguish his great love's own screams. If he was defending her and himself from a stranger, then why is he screaming while shooting someone behind a locked door? What gun fancier screams in terror while they are shooting deadly bullets from a 9 mm? They don't b/c they are convinced that they are in charge.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-23 15:32
The defense also has to explain why Reeva while being shot ISN"T SCREAMING because they're claiming that all of the screaming is coming from the man using the 9 mm gun.

If it was an intruder being shot, why isn't he screaming to give up?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Chris 2014-03-23 11:44
Why would you take a mobile phone to the toilet if you were just popping to the loo in the middle of the night?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Chris 2014-03-23 13:23
He can see well enough to manoeuvre a fan indoors but cannot see his girlfriend is not in bed?!?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-23 15:50
His claim that he didn't look to see if Reeva was in bed with him is perhaps the worst lie in his whole story.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-5 # Defender 2014-03-24 13:06
You have to remember that this happened very quickly - over a few seconds. It wasn't drawn out over half an hour or any length of time (the witnesses to the screams would have had ample time to alert the police if this was the case). It is possible that Oscar 'sensed' Reeva was still in bed perhaps from a rumpled duvet/lingering smell of her hair or perfume etc. Also remember that Reeva had confided to family/friends that she wanted to take the relationship slowly and thought Oscar was moving to fast. She could have talked to him about this and he may well have respected her wishes. So even though they were in a relationship, he could have been sharing a bed with a 'friend' (as opposed to his future wife, if you know what I mean). When he heard the noise he would have wanted to take things into his own hands (it was his house after all) and maybe eagerly jumped at the chance to prove to her that he was a capable man and protector - to impress her even?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 14:38
Quoting Defender:
You have to remember that this happened very quickly - over a few seconds.

You are engaging in fanciful speculation that violates both the evidence and human behavior in both OP's case and Reeva's. The witnesses reported hearing a very loud argument and then shots and "blood curdling" screams from a woman and more shots and then no more screams.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # julia 2014-04-24 01:49
I disagree...I do NOT think this all took a few seconds...that is HIS version.
I believe he snapped and she ran, locked the door, to protect herself...not realizing what a complete and total freak this guy is and what he is apparently capable of. He's a control freak with a gun...and gunna show her..blah blah blah
very sad...wish she had run for the front door ... :sad:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+8 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 14:46
Quoting Defender:
It is possible that Oscar 'sensed' Reeva was still in bed perhaps from a rumpled duvet/lingering smell of her hair or perfume etc.

Seriously? You or anyone you know or OP himself based on his former girlfriend's testimony would have reached for their loved one and made sure they were safe. OP's affidavit states that he couldn't tell and didn't look to see if she was in bed with him. So your theory is contradicted by the defendant himself. As to their being "friends" sleeping in bed, again, are you serious? Even if one accepted your premise that doesn't change the fact that he would have checked to make sure she was in bed with him based on his own account of his motives. He claims he heard an intruder and wanted to protect them. How could he protect them if he didn't even know if she was in bed with him and not somewhere else in the house? It would have been the very first thing he'd have done to check on her, even if she was just a "friend."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Defender 2014-03-24 13:07
Also - yes, she may have screamed but he may not have known EXACTLY where she was during those few seconds and hearing her may even have spurred him on to further and more deliberate action with the shooting. IT IS POSSBILE. The combination of adrenalin and confusion could easily have lead to bad judgement in that situation - he's not a professional police officer/militar y person and wouldn't have had the training to follow an expected procedure or handle the situation in a methodical manner.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 14:41
Your standard here of "IT IS POSSIBLE" isn't the standard employed in court cases or in science or in any form of reliable reasoning. By your reasoning, anyone who makes up a lie after they murder someone should be given the benefit of the doubt because their version IS POSSIBLE.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Defender 2014-03-24 16:37
Ah, but unless PROVEN otherwise.
Suspects, throughout history, were always automatically found guilty and had to try to prove their innocence (wrong, until proven right - which was unscientific). Then the law changed to give suspects in a crime the benefit of the doubt by finding them innocent until proven guilty. There were many reasons why this was favoured as a fairer and more humane system.

With reference to science - all science is theory. When scientists come up with a theory they don't try to prove it - they do their best to disprove it. It's how science works (right, until proven wrong). If a theory can't be disproved it becomes accepted until such time as it can be disproved. Scientists relentlessly try to disprove existing theories all the time in their quest for truth/fact, even if they don't want to ultimately disprove a theory that answers a lot of questions. People once thought the earth was flat until it was proven to be otherwise.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 16:47
You need to brush up on the standards of proof in courtrooms and also the underlying logic of jurisprudence. (I'm going to get to your other argument about God and science shortly). The criterion in court is yes, a suspect is not assumed to be guilty until the evidence either proves or shows beyond reasonable doubt that they are in fact guilty. You have distorted this to mean that if a suspect can come up with any crazy theory about why they did what they did, and the prosecution can't PROVE that their fanciful theory is wrong, then the suspect must go free. That's not how it works. The process is one in which testimony and evidence are weighed. If you do that, instead of clinging to the idea that you in your gut can't believe that a sports hero could be guilty of a heinous murder, then it's obvious that OP is lying and that he knowingly murdered RS.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 16:53
Quoting Defender:
[A]ll science is theory.


First, it's not correct to say that "all of science is theory." Some of science and science in its origins consists of empirical data systematized. Empirical data has been and will continue to be the foundation for science. Data is how we determine ultimately whether something is true or not.

Second, accepted theories in the natural sciences HAVE been proven. Evolution has been proven, for example. Anyone who doubts evolutionary theory should examine the life course of viruses like influenza and they will see the course of evolutionary development in the space of a year.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Defender 2014-03-24 18:39
Quoting Dennis Loo:

First, it's not correct to say that "all of science is theory." Some of science and science in its origins consists of empirical data systematized. Empirical data has been and will continue to be the foundation for science. Data is how we determine ultimately whether something is true or not.

I'm not Barry Roux but still I put it to you :-) :
Wikipedia
"Concept of "scientific proof" -
While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory," and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.""
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Defender 2014-03-24 16:38
It's like belief in God as well. The reason so many people (including some scientists!) still believe in God is because science is unable to PROVE that God does not exist. As soon as science is able to do that I'm sure many will have a change of heart but until then people don't need proof to believe or have faith in something. Evolution is a theory that is widely accepted as 'fact' because it hasn't yet been PROVEN to be false (it hasn't been proven to be 'true' either although there is a lot of 'evidence' to support it - it's not how science works).

There are a lot of people who want to believe OP is innocent even if it wouldn't shock or surprise them if he's found guilty. But Oscar doesn't have to prove he's innocent. They have to prove he's guilty.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 16:58
First, I can prove the non-existence of God. Second, the reason "so many people still believe in God" isn't because science hasn't proven his non-existence. The reason so many believe in God has to do with things like fear of death and a desire for there to be meaning to suffering. Third, you don't seem to understand how science works. Fourth, if you can't see that OP is lying and that his own account of his actions in his affidavit a) contradicts itself, and b) contradicts the facts of the case, then I don't know what to tell you. But the debate is useful because your views are mirrored by at least some others out there and it's worthwhile to air these notions so that they can be subjected to close examination and people can learn from it all.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 17:03
Quoting Defender:
science is unable to PROVE that God does not exist.


I certainly can't fully unfold the proof of his non-existence in a comment box, but let me give you a taste of the essence of the proof: the Holy Bible claims that before the heavens and the earth was God. No such scenario is possible because there cannot have EVER been a situation in which there wasn't matter in motion. You can no more imagine a situation without matter in motion than you could hear music without there being both sound AND silence. To read this page you have to both letters and the white space on which the letters are displayed and can be contrasted to. In other words, the premise for God's existence as some non-material being is impossible.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 17:05
Quoting Defender:
It's like belief in God as well. The reason so many people (including some scientists!) still believe in God is because science is unable to PROVE that God does not exist.



I certainly can't fully unfold the proof of his non-existence in a comment box, but let me give you a taste of the essence of the proof: the Holy Bible claims that before the heavens and the earth was God. No such scenario is possible because there cannot have EVER been a situation in which there wasn't matter in motion. You can no more imagine a situation without matter in motion than you could hear music without there being both sound AND silence. To read this page you have to have BOTH letters and the white space on which the letters are displayed and can be contrasted to. In other words, the premise for God's existence as some non-material being is impossible.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Defender 2014-03-24 18:34
Quoting Dennis Loo:
the Holy Bible claims that before the heavens and the earth was God. No such scenario is possible because there cannot have EVER been a situation in which there wasn't matter in motion.

I would definitely think that God is not some form of matter but rather a form of consciousness that exists regardless of matter or any natural force. (Consciousness = that thing that makes us humans separate from animals.)
Quoting Dennis Loo:
You can no more imagine a situation without matter in motion than you could hear music without there being both sound AND silence.
Are you saying that God is limited to what we can IMAGINE as human beings? I would propose that God is way beyond human imagination. People have always tried to explain the concept of God within the limits of human understanding/i magination instead of accepting that it could well be way beyond this. I don't believe God is a he/she.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 19:13
God is not real. The idea of God, obviously, is quite real and has real consequences. Humanity created the idea of God, rather than the other way around. The God that was created by humans is based on humans but made all-knowing and all-powerful. In other words, taking what humans actually know and extrapolating into the realm of the supernatural.

Consciousness is something that we share with other animals who have enough brain matter to develop a sense of self such as other primates, dolphins, and elephants. Consciousness arises from gray matter when there is enough gray matter. It is not something separate and apart but a higher form of matter in motion.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 19:34
And whales. I forgot to mention whales.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Defender 2014-03-24 18:36
Quoting Dennis Loo:
To read this page you have to have BOTH letters and the white space on which the letters are displayed and can be contrasted to. In other words, the premise for God's existence as some non-material being is impossible.

But these words existed in your mind way before they materialised/we re seen on this page - and they were neither matter nor force when they existed there. It doesn't make them any less real.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 19:16
You, obviously, are an idealist in the philosophical sense, like Plato was. I am a materialist. Idealists can believe anything they want. It's like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland:

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 19:19
And the concrete manifestation of your philosophical idealism is that in the Pistorius case, you are willing to believe any fanciful but unsupported theory at all? This is not how the criminal justice system is designed to work. The CJS, when it's working according to basic principles, takes empirical data and matches it up to what version of events fits the data. It doesn't take any theory a defendant chooses that serves his or her purposes and accepts it as true. Truth and objective reality exist and they matter.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 19:22
And the concrete manifestation of your philosophical idealism is that in the Pistorius case, you are willing to believe any fanciful but unsupported theory at all. The criminal justice system, when it's working according to sound principles, takes empirical data and matches them up to the version of events that fits the data. It doesn't take any theory a defendant chooses that serves his or her purposes and accepts it as true. Truth and objective reality exist and they matter. The reason you like the notion that science is only unproven theory is because it matches your philosophical idealism. One might even describe your view as solipsism.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Defender 2014-03-24 19:43
Quoting Dennis Loo:
And the concrete manifestation of your philosophical idealism is that in the Pistorius case, you are willing to believe any fanciful but unsupported theory at all.

That's an odd assumption considering I've pointed out several times that I have doubts regarding OP's version of events - BUT that it's POSSIBLE he is innocent (I've never said PROBABLE).
Quoting Dennis Loo:
It doesn't take any theory a defendant chooses that serves his or her purposes and accepts it as true.
Of course not, but neither does it immediately judge it to be false. That's why they have a TRIAL in a COURT.
Quoting Dennis Loo:
One might even describe your view as solipsism.

Well, I've learned a new word. Again, I don't know how you reach that conclusion. Is it meant as an insult? I won't comment again but am sure of one thing - that OP is very lucky you're not his judge or on the jury! peace
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 19:49
To say you might even be a solipsist is not meant as an insult. What is the difference in your mind between probable and possible as it applies in a court case? As you have used the term "possible," you have said that OP could be found innocent on the grounds that his theory could possibly be true. Yet his story clashes with witness testimony, physical evidence, and his own affidavit is contradictory.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Defender 2014-03-24 20:32
You obviously feel strongly that you are right so 'debating' the subject with someone like me is not serving much purpose. I am trying to remain impartial. But there is a reason why some of the best lawyers in South Africa are still working on this case. It has now been extended to May after a conclusion was expected this week. Why didn't the judge just bang her gavel ages ago and pronounce him guilty as charged instead of tolerating (as you seem to suggest) such an immense waste of the court's time? There must be a reason. And yes, I believe it is their responsibility to consider EVERY possbility and not just follow their gut feelings - whatever they may be. This is a very serious case - one life has been lost and another is at stake. This is a civilised society and these are highly intelligent people debating this case in court. No-one wants to send an innocent man to prison but it's their duty if he's guilty. There must be some doubts - not just in my 'soliptic' mind.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 20:44
Due process dictates that everyone be given a fair hearing in court and that based on the adversarial system that the defendant have proper representation to plead his side of the story. So, no, the judge banging her gavel down before the whole case is done would be improper. That is the reason for due process and due process is one of the hallmarks of a just society. If you think that I've been arguing based on gut feelings then I'd suggest you read over what I have written. I'm interested in the truth, whatever the truth is, and the way we get to the truth is through basing it on evidence.

The term you're looking for is "solipsistic."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 20:56
There's a difference between doubting whether angels can sit on a pin and doubts about whether Oscar Pistorius was screaming like a woman while shooting Reeva to death.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Defender 2014-03-24 20:35
typo - would that be solipsic?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-24 19:52
Quoting Defender:
OP is very lucky you're not his judge or on the jury! peace


Hopefully, in terms of justice for the victim in this case, Reeva Steenkamp, and her family and all other women who are victims of male supremacy, her murderer is found guilty.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # julia 2014-04-24 01:55
Amen to that friend...this guy is a psych case undeniably
Justice for Reeva
and all those who have experienced psychos, both male and female...may they find peace if they lost their life
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Max 2014-03-26 14:40
Nothing I've read here convinces me OP is guilty of murder though you seem certain Dennis. Yes, manslaughter at minimum, and he certainly deserves jail-time for that, but I find it hard to believe anybody would shoot through a door if they seriously wanted to kill somebody. It makes no sense to do that. Let's also not forget the prosecutor also makes up his story and tries his hardest to make it fit the facts just as seriously as the defense will start doing very shortly.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-26 14:42
You are confusing the means of killing her with intent.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-26 22:54
Max: What you find hard to believe - that someone would shoot thru a door w/ intent to kill - isn't the same thing as evidence. Some others have expressed disbelief that OP is capable of such a heinous act. The facts remain, nonetheless, that he did indeed shoot four times thru the door at Reeva and that Reeva was screaming in terror and agony while he was doing it. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that OP knew for certain that he was shooting his girlfriend, not an alleged intruder. This is evident not only b/c of her screams, but also because of the fact that she locked the door (obviously because she was trying to escape an out of control boyfriend) & because OP would not have gotten out of bed to check on an intruder without first checking to make sure Reeva was safe in bed next to him. To get at the truth it's v. important to avoid substituting what your emotions or sentiments tell you for what the evidence tells you.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-26 22:55
Max: What you find hard to believe - that someone would shoot thru a door w/ intent to kill - isn't the same thing as evidence. Some others have expressed disbelief that OP is capable of such a heinous act. The facts remain, nonetheless, that he did indeed shoot four times thru the door at Reeva and that Reeva was screaming in terror and agony while he was doing it. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that OP knew for certain that he was shooting his girlfriend, not an alleged intruder. This is evident not only b/c of her screams, but also because of the fact that she locked the door (obviously because she was trying to escape an out of control boyfriend - neighbors reported a v. loud argument before shots) & because OP would not have gotten out of bed to check on an intruder without first checking to make sure Reeva was safe in bed next to him. To get at the truth it's v. important to avoid substituting what your emotions or sentiments tell you for what the evidence tells you.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # julia 2014-04-24 01:57
Most people live on the surface Dennis...
they do not SEE the patterns
Unfortunaltly
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-24 16:42
Julia: What a wonderful comment! :roll:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-26 23:00
Quoting Max:
Let's also not forget the prosecutor also makes up his story and tries his hardest to make it fit the facts just as seriously as the defense will start doing very shortly.

What both sides in this case are trying to do is not necessarily the same thing as the objective truth of what occurred. We don't have to equate, nor should we, the fact that both are trying to make their best case with the fact that there is sequence of events that actually occurred. The ques of what's true is something that we arrive at thru comparing a narrative to the evidence. Which narrative fits the evidence? It's not, in other words, a question of saying both sides in a case have their motives and one can't figure out b/c of that what is actually true.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-26 23:02
Quoting Max:
Let's also not forget the prosecutor also makes up his story and tries his hardest to make it fit the facts just as seriously as the defense will start doing very shortly.
What both sides in this case are trying to do is not necessarily the same thing as the objective truth of what occurred. We don't have to equate, nor should we, the fact that both are trying to make their best case with the fact that there is a sequence of events that actually occurred. The ques of what's true is something that we arrive at thru comparing a narrative to the evidence. Which narrative fits the evidence? It's not, in other words, a question of saying both sides in a case have their motives and one can't figure out b/c of that what is actually true. It's not just a competition between competing interpretations . It's a question of what is actually TRUE.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Max 2014-03-27 11:24
Dennis, for the sake of fairness and benefit to your readers, here is OP's version of events of that tragic night in full.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/19/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-affadavit/index.html

I tried to paste it here but it said the comment is too long. Maybe you could add it to your page manually?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-27 13:31
In the first line of my article above I already linked to his full affidavit when it was filed in February 2013 so people can click on that link. As they will see and if they think through the affidavit, OP's account of his actions clash with the physical evidence, with witness testimony, and with human behavior as we know it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Chris 2014-03-29 14:43
Could Reeva see well enough to make it to the bathroom without turning the light on if it was pitch black? And where did Ocsar go and what did he do when he left her body with the doctor and went upstairs? Did he go and open the window to stage the scene? Why did he not ask whoever was in the toilet to identify themselves or surrender before shooting ? Could he have warned them he was armed and was calling security? To shoot FOUR times without giving someone a chance to surrender is a bit trigger happy. It goes against his gun training.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-29 16:29
Quoting Chris:
Why did he not ask whoever was in the toilet to identify themselves or surrender before shooting? Could he have warned them he was armed and was calling security? To shoot FOUR times without giving someone a chance to surrender is a bit trigger happy. It goes against his gun training.

Absolutely. It is absurd to believe that a) OP didn't warn the "intruder," b) that an intruder would lock themselves in the bathroom BEFORE the occupants were alerted to his presence since locking the door would make a noise that could awaken the occupants, and locking oneself in a toilet room when you're a burglar makes absolutely no sense, c) that whoever was being shot would remain silent and not scream or yell thru the full four shots.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Defender 2014-03-30 23:49
hope it's ok to comment (I get an email every time someone does because I've commented before as well :-) )

It is possible that an intruder could have 'hidden' behind a toilet door with the intention of emerging later once the fuss had died down and the residents were off guard. I agree it would be odd for an intruder to LOCK themselves in a toilet but, according to O.P.'s testimony, he only realised the door was locked AFTER the shooting, not before. He said he heard a noise in the bathroom and didn't say he heard a door being locked. I've sometimes been in a house alone at night and admit to being worried about 'shadows behind doors' or doors left ajar - behind a door is perhaps one of the best places for a person to hide (perfect height and width).

Also, this wasn't the first time O.P. had dealt with a break in or an intruder. In his affidavit he mentions being faced with this threat before. That might explain his impulsive behaviour and over reaction?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-24 02:00
OMG...WOW :o
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-24 01:59
yep
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Chris 2014-03-30 21:39
You don't have to see someone to confirm that they are in bed, you can call/whisper their name or touch/ shake their arm/leg. There were a variety of options open to Oscar. In the past he alerted friends/ an ex-girlfriend by asking them if they were ok first before he checked for an intruder.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-31 03:34
Exactly so.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Defender 2014-03-31 00:15
Don't you think it's AT ALL POSSIBLE that Oscar may well have heard Reeva scream AND that this drove him to shoot far quicker than he would normally have done - not because he thought he was shooting at her but to protect her? If you look at the floor plan of the apartment, whether Reeva was in the bedroom or the toilet, her screams would have come from the same direction - both from Oscar's right. Because of the design of the apartment there doesn't seem to be a bathroom (or bedroom) door - only a toilet door and shower door, and perhaps it was usually easy to hear someone in the bedroom from the bathroom?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-31 03:31
Quoting Defender:
Don't you think it's AT ALL POSSIBLE that Oscar may well have heard Reeva scream AND that this drove him to shoot far quicker than he would normally have done - not because he thought he was shooting at her but to protect her?

Physicists tell us that it IS POSSIBLE for all of the air in a room to collect under a table, but will we ever see such a thing? Not bloody likely. What IS POSSIBLE is not the same thing as what fits with the evidence. You seem uncommonly intent on trying to find any conceivable way that OP could be telling the truth. That is, first of all, not how the law works. The law is supposed to work based on evidence and reasonable deductions based on the evidence rather than any wildly conceivable set of events. The witness testimony is that a very loud argument going on at OP's prior to screams and shots. Any set of events you want to speculate about have to fit that set of facts. Yours don't.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-03-31 03:33
Quoting Defender:
Don't you think it's AT ALL POSSIBLE that Oscar may well have heard Reeva scream AND that this drove him to shoot far quicker than he would normally have done - not because he thought he was shooting at her but to protect her?

No, I don't think it's at all possible. Physicists tell us that it IS POSSIBLE for all of the air in a room to collect under a table, but will we ever see such a thing? Not bloody likely. What IS POSSIBLE is not the same thing as WHAT FITS with the evidence. The law is supposed to work based on evidence and reasonable deductions based on the evidence rather than any wildly conceivable set of events. The witness testimony is that a very loud argument was going on at OP's prior to screams and shots. Any set of events you want to speculate about have to fit that set of facts. Yours don't.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Ali 2014-04-08 14:21
Just a thought. Pistorius said he retrieved his gun in darkness which he kept under the bed. Reeva Steenkamp was in the toilet. Why would she have gone to the toilet without putting any lights on? If the light was on, why did he assume that an intruder had switched it on (an intruder wouldn't). The only reason you wouldn't put a light on is if there was enough light to see what you where doing, which in turn would mean there was enough light to see that she was not in bed. He shouted for Steenkamp to call the police, he was shouting and screaming for people to get out of his home. She was in the toilet and new no one else was there. She was bound to reply. So why didn't he see her? and why didn't she reply?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-09 03:23
Quoting Ali:
So why didn't he see her? and why didn't she reply?

Witnesses in the trial have testified that they heard a very loud argument prior to the shots and screaming. As you are indicating, Oscar's account of the events do not conform to what we rightly would expect him to do and what the physical conditions (e.g., the amount of light sufficient for him to see that she was not in bed with him) would have had to be.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-09 03:25
Quoting Ali:
The only reason you wouldn't put a light on is if there was enough light to see what you where doing, which in turn would mean there was enough light to see that she was not in bed. She was in the toilet and (k)new no one else was there. She was bound to reply. So why didn't he see her? and why didn't she reply?

Witnesses in the trial have testified that they heard a very loud argument prior to the shots and to a woman screaming in terror. As you are indicating, Oscar's account of the events do not conform to what we rightly would expect him to do and what the physical conditions (e.g., the amount of light sufficient for him to see that she was not in bed with him) would have had to be.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Beatrix 2014-04-09 14:44
Oscar is squirming in court desperate not to say anything that will harm his case but I'm afraid the old saying, " what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to decieve" applies 100% here. Gerrie Nell is letting Oscar talk himself into trouble with every question, one minute Pistorius purports to be a very intelligent, lucid and in control witness but the next he doesn't understand the question or "can't remember".

Perhaps his most blatant Freudian slip today was when he said his evidence had been "re-worked". I'm glad Mr. Nell told him to take responsibility for his actions, what Pistorius called "a mistake" was the cold blooded murder of a defenceless young woman.

He needs to stop the waterworks and show some respect to Reeva's family and to the court, after all he is an adult not a child and this case is about discovering the facts of Reeva's murder, which is extremely difficult when he is forever retching and sobbing.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-09 22:00
You raise really good points Beatrix.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Lyssa 2014-04-09 21:24
I personally have been married for five years and everytime I use the restroom (even in the middle of the night for a pee) I still lock the door out of habit and privacy. However, if Oscar had indeed yelled for Reeva to phone the police prior to shooting, wouldnt she have spoke up and said, "Hey, it's me in here," therefore alerting him that it is his GF rather than an intruder?!!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-09 22:01
Yes, certainly that's true. Note too that witnesses reported a very loud argument occurring at OP's place before the shots and screams, so all the more reason not to believe OP's version of events.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Lynda landrith 2014-04-10 20:01
Exactly my point too.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dawn Taylor 2014-04-09 21:43
what about any lovey dovey sex ? don't think anything much happened - not a perfect night of love.....more anxiety for a sexy, scorpio Pistorius
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dawn Taylor 2014-04-09 21:49
What about any lovey, dovey sex ? Don't think anything much happened..... more anxiety for a sexy, scorpio Pistorius.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Beatrix 2014-04-09 22:59
Thanks Dennis, there are just so many discrepancies in his story. Yesterday he said he stood in the bathroom pointing his gun for some time, he couldn't say how long for, waiting, this is when he also claimed to have shouted at the intruders to get out. Yet today he claimed he didn't have time to think before pulling the trigger, implying he wasn't in the bathroom for very long at all.

Also his account of Reeva's final moments seems illogical, having broken the door down he sits over her and cries for a while rather than calling an ambulance or calling for help. He then calls a friend and then only after doing that calls the emergency services. Yet he also claimed he was trying to help her breathe by keeping her airways open, which means he thought she might live. If you thought you had a chance of saving someone's life the first thing you would do would be to call an ambulance, rather than your friend. No?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Lynda landrith 2014-04-10 19:40
When O.P said he shouted at Reeva to call the police,surely if it happened like he said she would have shouted back that she was in the toilet....not that I believe him for one minute...I bet her mother knows how he was,and I heard she was pregnant,and was accused by P.O. Of getting close to his best mate the rugby player,she admitted to dating in the past,proof apparently on her iPad...anyway O.P. Is supposed to have told her the baby wasn't his but the rugby players..the other thing that strikes me as odd is why would Reeba make O.P.wait til the next day for his present when it stated there was 4 pics of them togeather in a frame. I think it was a surprise more than that,why make him wait. Anyway time will tell :sigh:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Lynda landrith 2014-04-10 20:00
Apparently is quite the norm as I've heard from many friends who have lived and visited South Africa.not to mention my uncle being the mayor of Durban years ago,that it is such a lawless country and it seems to shock us because we don't have to be so aware...people have to carry arms for their own safety there...saying all this,O.P. Slipped up badly by saying he shouted at Reeva to call the police,at which point she would have replied she was in the bathroom and it would have notified him of here whereabouts.jus t like the initial noise he said he heard from that same room...
I read an article explaining the alleged argument they both had that night. It begins her telling him she's pregnant,him saying it can't be his but his best friend a big handsome rugby player that she admitted to dating in the past,and there is evidence of these two texting on her iPad. I think the valentines gift was more than 4 pics of them in a frame too.why make him wait he had given her hers.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Chris 2014-04-10 21:07
Oscar said he would know if Reeva popped downstairs to get a snack in the middle of the night yet he did not know that she went to the toilet. How can he be so certain about the former yet not the latter??
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Defender 2014-04-12 19:03
There are still a couple of things that bother me. Firstly, why are there only two sets of witnesses who heard screams that night and why are they only people who lived some distance away? The estate where O.P. lived was one of two estates in the area and the prime witnesses lived on the other estate! That's a lot of houses inbetween - why no other witnesses? Perhaps there was another argument going on elsewhere? (so much for Valentines!) The other thing is - if Reeva heard Oscar shout: I don't see that it's odd if she didn't call out/scream, especially if she also believed an intruder was really there. She may have felt safer in the toilet and calling out to Oscar would have given her position away.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # david 2014-04-15 10:07
I seem to remember him saying he tried to ring for help on her phone but that it was locked so he went back to the bedroom and called on his..i cant find any record of that ..but if its true then she probably grabbed it, ran, locked herself in the toilet and was trying to get away from him and call for help.. its so significant.. does anyone else know if she had her phone with her.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # T.Ruth Willout 2014-04-16 11:55
Hi David, yes, Reeva did have her phone with her in the toilet. You can find the text transcript of what Oscar said re this on the bbc news website; I think it was during the 3rd day of his cross exam.
And yes, I agree with you and find it utterly baffling
that more was not made of this seemingly vital piece of evidence and crucial questions were not asked.
Why did Oscar think Reeva took her phone with her, to the toilet, in the early hours of the morning ?
Was it because they were having a blazing row,she was afraid of him and ran with her phone to the toilet,locked herself in to protect herself from him and also buy herself enough time to call for help ?
It is my belief that this is what happened and that Oscar was well aware of her intention to do that and that tragically is the motive: it was the ONLY way he could PREVENT her from phoning for help,from behind a locked door.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-16 14:47
Quoting T.Ruth Willout:
it was the ONLY way he could PREVENT her from phoning for help,from behind a locked door.

I think your interpretation is exactly on point. This was a classic "if I can't have you, nobody will have you" batterer tragedy. Reeva was likely trying to call someone and OP had finally made it crystal clear to her he was dangerously controlling and he could not accept that she might complete that call and killed her to stop it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # T.Ruth Willout 2014-04-16 14:20
Hi David,yes,Reeva did have her phone with her in the toilet. You can see what OP had to say re this in text transcripts on the bbc news website, of the 3rd day (I think ?) of his cross exam.
I completely agree with you and have also found it baffling that more was not made of this seemingly vital piece of evidence and crucial questions were not asked :
Why did OP think Reeva took her phone with her, to the toilet, in the early hours of the morning ?
Was it because they were having a blazing row, she was afraid of him and ran with her phone to the toilet and locked herself in; to protect herself from him and also buy herself enough time to call for help ?
It is my belief that this is what happened and that OP was well aware of her intention to do that and he was overwhelmed by panic and an urgent need to stop
her. This tragically, may well be the motive,as it was the ONLY way he could PREVENT her from phoning for help, from behind a locked door.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Marga 2014-04-16 09:58
has it come out in court why she might of taken her phone to the toilet and how she found it in pitch dark room without him hearing her trying to get it
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # KC 2014-04-16 14:54
OP speculated that RS may have used the light from her phone screen to find her way to the bathroom in the pitch dark room. OP, of course, did not see this as he had his back to the passageway bringing in the fans. What I am waiting for Mr Nell to ask (unless I have missed it?) is, why did RS not phone the police if that is what OP had been 'screaming' at her to do, over and over again?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-16 15:05
Quoting KC:
why did RS not phone the police if that is what OP had been 'screaming' at her to do, over and over again?


The irony of this is that RS might very well have been trying to call the police for help from a crazed and murderous boyfriend and he killed her to stop that from happening. Regarding the light: unless OP had blackout curtains (which he didn't), one's eyes adjust to the dark and when you get up in the night to go to the bathroom it is not going to be so dark that one can't see one's hand in front of one's face.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-04-20 14:26
Quoting Dennis Loo:
Regarding the light: unless OP had blackout curtains (which he didn't)


According to the testimony of Roger Dixon, OP has blackout curtains in his bedroom. This is not in dispute.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Deborah 2014-04-20 18:37
Roger Dixon didn't make a very convincing defence witness though did he.? Very fluffy - i would want to check out all his findings. At one point he seemed to be saying that as more evidence has come to light it has helped him with his findings. Seemed to me that he was doing a bit of tailoring here too.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-04-16 15:14
Yesterday, expert defense witness, Roger Dixon stated that they had recreated the conditions of the fated night in OP's bedroom and it was so dark, 'he could not see his hand in front of his face'.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-16 15:18
I know, but I don't believe it. When have you ever gotten up in the night and found that you couldn't see your hand in front of your face? If he recreated the situation but didn't recreate it by closing his eyes in a dark room for a few hours and then opened his eyes, then his eyes would not be dilated from sleep and then maybe he couldn't see.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # KC 2014-04-16 15:26
I agree Dennis. However, Roger Dixon said that, due to the ambient light coming from outside and that OP would have been looking into this light as he brought in the fans just before he closed the curtains. Therefore, RD is saying that this is why OP's eyes were not used to the dark.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-16 15:36
I worked in a law office for nine years and expert witnesses know who is paying their fees and they will tailor their opinions to satisfy their clients. If there was ambient light coming from outside, which I knew had to be the case, this is all the more reason to reject OP's claims that he couldn't see in the dark. His being exposed to that light when he closed the curtains would not have undilated his eyes enough to make it impossible to see at all. In addition, this business about it being too dark to see if Reeva was in bad still is a red herring. If it had indeed been so dark he literally couldn't see, then he should have and would have felt for her to make sure she was there. And he wouldn't have been able to find his precious gun and make his way to the bathroom if it was that dark.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-04-16 16:31
In OP's version there was ambient light in the room before he closed the curtains not afterwards. All reasonable people would have to agree that OP's story cannot be true. It simply does not follow any logic or normal human behaviour. However, as I have stated previously, to date, there is no SOLID evidence to prove that it didn't go the way OP states it. Mr Nell tried very hard and made some very good points, but he also made himself look foolish by making some stupid errors. As you will know Dennis, just saying, 'your version is a lie', over and over again, is not a case.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-16 16:40
KC: While I would not have conducted the prosecution in the manner that Nell did, the law doesn't require that you prove that the defendant's version of events is wrong. The standard is that he did the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. OP, of course, did the crime and the question before the court is whether he did so by mistake or knowingly. As you say, no reasonable person can find OP's fanciful and contradictory version of events credible. The ONLY interpretation that is credible, sustained by the physical evidence, and by witness testimony, and that conforms to human behavior, is that he knowingly and deliberately shot Reeva as a result of and during a screaming argument between them and that Reeva locked the toilet room door in an unsuccessful attempt to protect herself from an out of control boyfriend. Any other version that has been offered to explain the events, whether by OP or others, is contradicted by the evidence and therefore cannot be true.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Deborah 2014-04-17 07:19
The fans blew in OPs face as he brought them in. What doesn't make sense to me is that means they were plugged in from the bedroom extension but kept on the balcony behind closed curtains..? The reason he goes on the balcony is to give credibility to his story of not seeing or hearing reeva that he didn't hear reeva leave the bedroom. I think he fired in a fit of rage as a threat to get her to come out. He just didn't think ghrough consequences in that small space. Hence his devastation afterwards.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-17 13:25
Quoting Deborah:
The fans blew in OPs face as he brought them in. What doesn't make sense to me is that means they were plugged in from the bedroom extension but kept on the balcony behind closed curtains..? The reason he goes on the balcony is to give credibility to his story of not seeing or hearing reeva that he didn't hear reeva leave the bedroom.
Exactly. It doesn't make sense to have fans on that are cooling off the air outside and have the curtains closed off to the bedroom behind them. He knew and had to know that Reeva had gone to the bathroom. She could only have gone there in the course of an extremely heated argument and she retreated to it in fear. Thus witnesses' testimony that they heard a huge argument prior to shots and screams.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Deborah 2014-04-17 13:57
Can we expect to hear about the blood splatter pattern on the cricket bat? If it was only used to attack the door AFTER Reeva was shot, then I would have expected to see drops or smears of blood as OP put down on the toilet floor. Amazing also how he was able to hold a gun whilst bashing the door - how else did the gun end up in the bathroom, you would put it down. This wasn't made clear as far as I can see.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # KC 2014-04-18 07:40
According to OP's version, the curtains were OPEN when the fans were outside. He closed them AFTER bringing the fans in. One can only surmise that having fans outside - presumably blowing air into the room - is maybe because the outside air temperature is relatively lower and this helps to cool the air in the room. Although, why someone with OP's wealth would not install AC, is rather lost on me! OP maintains that he was holding/carryin g his gun up until the time he started hitting the door with the bat. he then put it down on the bathroom floor. There was a lot of blood, so it could have easily been transferred to the bat in any quantity. The prosecution could easily prove it if OP had hit her with the bat. If he had, the case would have be closed by now and OP would be serving his life sentence.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # KC 2014-04-18 07:49
What I find interesting is that, other than the toilet cubicle being a confined space, looking at the way the shots were fired into the door, there was a very small chance that OP could have only wounded RS, or even missed her, if she had been standing to the extreme right and rear of the cubicle. I do realise that OP's choice of ammunition is designed to cause maximum damage but he would have had no way of knowing where her head was. All the bullets went into the door below the height of the lock which is at about waist height. Hence the summation that RS was hit in the hip first. However, given that the shots were fired in rapid succession, it was just horrible odds that the third or fourth shot hit her in the head as she fell.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-18 14:35
Quoting KC:
it was just horrible odds that the third or fourth shot hit her in the head as she fell.


Reeva screamed after, at a minimum, the first shot that smashed her hip. She was probably screaming at least until the third shot which killed her. It wasn't bad luck that Oscar killed her. He knew he was shooting her - he knew she was in the bathroom because they were arguing before he escalated the fight into shooting her - and he fired FOUR TIMES.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # Deborah 2014-04-18 14:57
Thanks kc. Your point about the way the shots were fire into the door further convinces me that he just didn't expect his recklessness would kill her. I believe he knew she was in there. They had a row, she locked the door and he was possibly shooting in a rage as a threat for her to open the door. If his prosthetics take only 20 seconds to put on then why challenge an intruder in a vulnerable position. He was probably on his stumps because he chased after Reeva in a crazy moment. His obsession with guns has destroyed so many lives.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-04-19 09:03
That's a good point about the time taken to put on OP's prosthetic legs Deborah. To my knowledge, Mr Nell did not make anything of that. One can only hope the Judge did. One thing I found very compelling was when Mr Nell asked OP why - while OP was shooting 'intruders' - did he not think that RS could have left the bedroom via the bedroom door. OP claims that he only began to realise that it could have been RS in the toilet when he found she was not in the bed. He checked to see if she was on the floor by the bed and he checked if she was behind the curtains but OP claims that by that point, for the first time, he suddenly thought, 'oh hang on, perhaps I just shot my girlfriend'. Therefore, he did not look any further for her, i.e. on the balcony or downstairs. Given that he was CONVINCED that he was dealing with intruders, I would say that that is another pretty big credibility hole in OP's version.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # deltoro 2014-04-19 01:41
soc. 302. If someone locked themselves in the toilet room is because it is trying to get away from someone. Oscar is show on that he is a violent man. He want to be on control of women. By showing the text, it make me think that he is violent man.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-04-19 09:16
This is also interesting. OP claims that he was shouting/scream ing two things. 1. To the intruder(s), 'Get the f--k out of my house!' 2. To Reeva, 'Reeva, phone the police!'. Could it have been, 'Get the f--k out of my house Reeva, or I'll call the police!'? A nice neat cover story to explain what neighbours may have heard.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Deborah 2014-04-19 14:42
Hi kc I thought that also. If you have ever read about 'statement analysis' it is a fact that people feel very uncomfortable lying. The words they use can betray them without them realising, hence OP will likely find it easier to quote exactly what was said but presents his words to let those listening think he is directing them at an intruder when he probably aimed them at Reeva.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-19 15:27
While it is true that most peo (except sociopathic liars) are uncomfortable lying, it is more likely that Reeva was indeed trying to leave the scene but had to retreat for what she hoped was only temporary to the safety of a locked toilet room door. It is because she was indeed intending to leave the relationship that OP took extreme measures to prevent her from leaving.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Deborah 2014-04-19 17:17
Dennis, I don't think she would write that message on the valentine card if she was going to end the relationship. I guess we will never know what she said or what happened to make him snap. Maybe she was not impressed that he had been looking at porn - not very romantic the day before valentines day! And he didn't like being told what he could or couldn't do in HIS house. No doubt he scared her enough that she ran and locked herself in the loo!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-19 17:38
Reeva wasn't planning ahead of time to end the relationship. She made a decision during that evening during the midst of an outburst and argument that was extreme enough that she locked herself in the bedroom in fear. Or at least she made a decision that was drastic enough that OP escalated to the point of killing her. If she wasn't sure the relationship had to end, that uncertainty ended when he began shooting her.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Deborah 2014-04-19 18:45
Has it been mentioned how blood was transferred to the bedroom? Also, did he continue to fumble in the dark looking for Reeva once he considered it may have been her in the bathroom or was it at that point he turned on the lights?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-04-20 09:58
Hello Deborah, I think blood was introduced into the bedroom on two occasions. Once when OP returned there to get his own mobile phone. He could not use RS's to phone for help as he did not have the access code. The second time was when he was carrying RS to take her downstairs. He had to go partially into the bedroom to do that. OP says that he checked the bed, then the floor to the right of the bed, by way of realising she was not on the floor because he would have felt her with his stumps as he stood between the bed and the curtains on the right of the bed. This was while he was feeling to see if she was behind the curtains. However, the reason he did not check further was because he said that by the time he did not find her in the bed, he had pretty much realised that it might have been RS in the toilet. I still don't think he had the lights on at this point. He certainly doesn't remember putting the lights on. So, that's pretty far fetched in itself!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Deborah 2014-04-20 14:12
Thanks KC. As you say, totally far far fetched as is most if his story. As if you would expect your partner to hide in silence whilst you blast away and scream at an intruder. I just hope that 'I don't remember m'lady' and 'that's incorrect m'lady' is not an acceptable defence.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # T.Ruth Willout 2014-04-19 20:09
Hi Dennis, KC + Deborah.
Firstly, thankyou Dennis for your comment earlier re my 1st post, it seems we are very much in agreement here.
Also KC, what you said about OP being very specific about what he shouted that night and the possible reason for that; I had same thought i.e. when he put that in his bail app affidavit, he also said he did not know who the state would call as witnesses. So yes, he KNEW they had had a blazing and VERY loud argument that night but @ that point, he had no idea what, if anything, had been overheard. So absolutely, he had to come up with something that could be explained away, just in case.
However, it is my feeling that maybe Reeva was screaming that she was going to call the police and he was shouting for her not to and just get the F out of his house.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Ian Bernadt 2014-04-19 15:41
Why did OP invite Reeva to stay the night?To do yoga or have sex? Perhaps Reeva said no to sex before dinner or after dinner?Perhaps OP,full of testosterone, getting angrier,watches porn at 10pm tries for sex again at 3am when Reeva says no it was too hot in the bedroom.So he brings the fans in and she still says no.So OP blows his top.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # KC 2014-04-19 16:03
A similar thought crossed my mind regarding sex. i.e. it has never been mentioned. RS did not live with OP and they were in the first months of a relationship. It seems very odd to me that she was just staying over so she could have dinner, do yoga and chat about cars and interior design. That strikes me as being very unusual.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Mitzie 2014-04-23 09:54
I have some questions:
a)Has proof been given that Reeva urinated/defica ted, other than autopsy report showing that her bladder was empty? I have not heard mention of the toilet being flushed or urine or feses found in the toilet (did they look at that?) b)If she was in the toilet to move her bowls, would there be a way to determine whether she "needed to go" and did not get a chance before getting shot? c) Is there any way to find out if going to throw up could have been a possibility?

If the toilet was never flushed or used, her reason for being in the cubicle is the crux of the matter in my opinion. Why has so little attention been given to this? It makes logical sense to use your phone as a torch, seeing as the toilet light wasnt working (proven fact). Even just playing on your phone while using the loo would be feasible - many people do that. Thus I do not see the phone being with her as a definite indication that she wanted to use it to call for help.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-23 13:51
The decisive facts are that she was in the toilet room, had locked the door, was screaming at OP before and during his fusillade of shots at her (witness testimony) during the argument that caused her to flee to the toilet room and lock the door, and that she was standing facing the door when he first shot her and smashed her hip (ballistics expert's testimony). She didn't go into the toilet room to use the toilet.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-04-23 14:08
If she didn't use the toilet, why was her bladder totally empty?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-23 14:10
My point is that this wasn't why she retreated to the toilet. The reason she was there was to escape from OP.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # KC 2014-04-23 14:16
Yes Dennis, but the things you have mentioned can be explained away by the defense. An empty bladder is a solid fact. No doubt about it, reasonable or otherwise.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-23 15:10
The screaming fight between RS and OP before the shots cannot be explained away by the defense. Nor can they reasonably explain away the inconsistency between OP's claims that he loved and wanted to protect RS against an intruder but he failed to check to his loved one to make sure that she was in bed with him before he goes to kill the intruder. As you know, OP changed his testimony on this during trial compared to his bail affidavit and the inconsistency is obvious.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Mitzie 2014-04-23 14:21
I do see your point. I just want to know if there is any scientific way (besides from witness testimony) to determine why she was in there. If it can be scientifically shown that her being there had nothing to do with bodily functions, the state shouold have a much stronger case, should it not? Why are they then not paying any attention to it?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # KC 2014-04-23 15:26
I don't think they can Mitzie or they would have made more of it. That RS had a completely empty bladder supports OP's version that she went to the toilet.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-23 15:45
Empty bladder v. everything else in the case that doesn't support OP's version.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # KC 2014-04-24 06:11
You are not being objective Dennis and appear to be blinded by your obvious hatred for OP. I am interested in the solid facts that are not in dispute, viewed from an unbiased standpoint. You present your opinions as if they are undisputed facts.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-24 13:33
Keith: It's true that I despise OP, but I didn't start out that way. When I first learned of him at the Olympics I thot that's great, he's accomplished a lot as an athlete. It's been very apparent from the start of this case, however, beginning with the first revelations and then esp. since his bail affidavit that a) his story is a concoction and b) he knew that he was shooting RS as he was doing it. My opinions are based on what the evidence indicates. The evidence is very clear if you're willing to draw conclusions based on evidence rather than on what one wants to or hopes to be true. The evidence and his behavior damn him. I'm non-partisan when it comes to pursuing the truth and the truth and evidence indicate that this man is at the very least narcissistic and a control freak who feels no remorse about what he's done. His tears and retching and acting out are all signs that he cares only for himself.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Deborah 2014-04-23 16:55
Even if Reeva went to the bathroom to use the loo or make a private call or text an ex boyfriend to send a valentine wish, it is highly unlikely that she would not have responded to OP's so called screams; moreover, if you lived in a secured gated community, surely the first thing you would do (after checking if your partner heard the same noise) would be to phone Security. You would take both these steps if you were afraid. If you were not afraid and confident with your firearm or had actually had a row with your partner and lost control, then you would do what OP did. In my opinion.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Ian Bernadt 2014-04-23 14:19
Why did they fight?There is no forensic evidence that they made love.How can a young extremely fit couple hop into bed without making love?Perhaps RS said "NO not tonight" for whatever reason and perhaps OP "blew his top".This would be the most common cause for any couple to have a rip-roaring fight.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Deborah 2014-04-23 18:17
Hi Ian, I think we are all asking the same question. If only we knew the motive. They have whatsapp messages between Reeva and oscar but I haven't heard anything about recent messages on either of their phones to other parties. I found it strange that OP didn't have any Valentine card or gift for Reeva. Not convinced he was in love with her.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-24 16:47
Quoting Deborah:
If only we knew the motive.

We do not have the most recent messages but we do have slightly older ones and they tell a very clear tale of a troubled relationship btw the two in which RS declares that she was scared of him at times. From her messages we can also see that he was extremely controlling and narcissistic. This is also evident by his behaviors in court. I think your suspicion that he didn't love her is likely true because he was really only in love with himself.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # T.Ruth Willout 2014-04-24 19:14
Hi Dennis, in total agreement with you here.
Absolutely OP has been described as being narcissistic in his behaviour. Let us supose for a moment that he is in fact actually a Narcissist, someone who really does have full-blown NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) as clinically defined and the events of that dreadful night and his motive may then be explained.
Narcissists go to great lengths to construct and maintain a positive public image/public face, while the reality of who they really are is something very different indeed. We also already know that his livelihood depended on it and he was SO terrified of possible negative press reports, that he lied, covered up, got others to take blame and lie for him about certain 'incidents', even when he was the victim of an assault that required stitches in his head !
He apparently BEGGED a newspaper NOT to print anything about that, because it could 'DESTROY' him.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # T.Ruth Willout 2014-04-24 19:52
And that, for me, is his motive and why there are grains of truth in his testimony. I believe him when he says that he was in fear for his life that night but it wasn't his 'physical' life that he was in danger of losing but his extremely bankable 'hero', 'golden boy' public image.
So yes, if the TRUTH got out about him being an aggressive, controlling, violent bully, then his life as he had known it would in effect have been over.
So, I believe, that yes, briefly, for those moments that Reeva had her phone in her hand behind that locked door, she was about to expose the truth about him and he could NOT ALLOW for that to happen and that is why he killed her. She died because she was, or rather, was moments away from being a 'Whistleblower' . Also explains his lack of urgency re phoning for help, he couldn't risk chance of her being saved and telling truth about that night. He made sure that the only version of events that people would hear, would be his.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-24 23:03
Quoting T.Ruth Willout:
I believe him when he says that he was in fear for his life that night but it wasn't his 'physical' life that he was in danger of losing but his extremely bankable 'hero', 'golden boy' public image.

I think this is very likely to be exactly right. It fits into the facts as we know them: his behavior before that fatal night (as evidenced by witnesses and by RS's text messages), his actions of that night, and his actions since then, particularly in court where he has put on a hysterical display and shown repeatedly a complete inability to square the results of his actions with his own self-image. He won't admit that he pulled the trigger four times. Won't admit that he killed her knowingly. Won't hear or see what's presented ...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # KC 2014-04-25 06:11
Yes, let's all hope that Mr Nel can convince the judge.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-25 14:30
It really is so tragic on so many levels. The majority of people out there have no idea what NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) even is. They just hear/think it's another "disorder" some Psychologists came up with. But it is so insidious. The legal system needs to be able to step back somehow and utilize these windows into what may very well be, reason swhy someone could commit this kind of brutality. This is why this guy and so many out there are so very dangerous. Dennis Loo and T.Ruth have really nailed it. This kind of awareness should be applied to cases...this world is not just "physical evidence" based,we are far more than that...and that is precisely WHY, those that have these distortions get away with so much.
Yes T.Ruth lets hope and pray the judge "sees" through to the truth
Reeva needs that truth and justice to come forward
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-25 17:49
Hi
I wanted to post this article on Narcissistic behavior,and Pistorious.This is for those who know little or nothing about it. For those who DENY it and don't believe this is a very disturbing and REAL problem. There are many who suffer next to these personalities because of it.

http://www.examiner.com/article/oscar-pistorius-the-mommy-s-boy-makings-of-a-narcissist
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Defender 2014-04-26 15:32
FLY ON THE WALL OR LORD OF THE FLIES? I think what we have here is a (biased) trial by public/popular opinion. But, who among you are prepared to look O.P. in the eye and sentence him to a life sentence, whilst being sure that it is now not you who are making a terrible mistake? Have you considered the (obviously inconsequential ) implications of slander or libel? I personally disagree with the 'mommy's boy' postulation (Elvis Presley was a famous mommy's boy and he never killed anyone!). I do think narcissistic behaviour could accurately describe someone who commits this type of crime although the 'condition' you're looking for is probably Sociopath - http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html - That said, how can you be so sure to label O.P. with this personality disorder? There seems to be an awful lot of detail emerging from that night yet nobody else was there. You can't speculate someone's guilt/innocence - you must prove it, otherwise where would we be? And how far can we go with this?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Defender 2014-04-26 15:51
One thing I have noticed (I could be wrong and maybe Dennis could correct me) is that the court proceedings are sometimes deliberately postponed/exten ded in an attempt to wittle away the defendents resolve. Is this perhaps one of many standard court 'processes'? In other words, if O.P. is lying he may eventually give in under the pressure but if he's telling the truth he will insist on his innocence and stick to his story no matter what. He has already 'stumbled' a few times but he hasn't really changed his story - just added to it or offered more detail to events. But I don't find this suspiscious - even witnesses sometimes recall finer details only at a later stage, sometimes under hypnosis and such. Wonder why they haven't done anything like that or performed a lie detector test? p.s. I'm not a 'Defender' of O.P. per se - just of a fair trial.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Deborah 2014-04-26 17:48
Before the start of OP being cross examined by GN my husband also thought he would break down under the pressure and admit to what actually happened however having since listened to OP I don't believe he will. This is someone who has overcome a disability and endured pain from training - this requires mental strength and he has that. He has had a year to 'rework' his story with clever guidance from his defence team. The fact he won't be swayed from his story is not a sign of his innocence. If you listen to what he says it is evident which parts of his testimony are true, because he can remember and express it very vividly (when he saw Reeva in the toilet. Where there are gaps in his story, he is vague or forgetful.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-27 02:44
Deborah, where he is "vague or forgetful" is where he is trying to "avoid' an answer all together...beca use he knows if he says this, it will mean that...and so forth
Calculated , manipulative, trying to save his butt, not tell the truth.
If that was the "truth" he wouldn't have to do that...that is really the point Nel is trying to make.
Look at how he tries to out smart Nel....narcissi stic behavior all the way
He crippled his own defense in doing so.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Deborah 2014-04-27 09:59
Julia I have always been interested in human behaviour and last night I watched a fascinating TV documentary called 'psychopath nights'. A successful female lawyer was a self claimed psychopath but because of the stigma associated with the term, preferred to call herself a sociopath (she had never committed a crime). As a result I did some research - it makes fascinating reading. maybe we are looking at something one step further than narcissism ...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-27 15:01
Undoubtedly he has layers of issues
Narcissism, Histrionics Personality disorder...and yes psychopath/sociopath
All these have very specific patterns and dynamics. All are very good at disguise.
Narcissists and sociopaths will ALWAYS come across like the nicest people you have ever met...very insidious
That's why people get so pulled in and "just can't believe it was so and so" he/she is just such a great person.
Very dangerous people, you will NEVER get the truth
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-27 03:15
Id be willing to look him in the eye and give him life...that's for sure.
NO DOUBT
I was almost killed by a NARCISSIST. Read links that have been posted if you don't think one can KILL.
His out of control courtroom histrionics shows he is indeed a person that is emotionally capable of being out of control. He perhaps thinks this will help,(the judge is a women and he never looks at Nel, just her)pleading to mommy, when in fact it shows when he gets overwhelmed he MELTS DOWN. Emotional cripple, emotionally arrested and will lash out...this guy should NEVER and i mean NEVER have a gun close to him again. He was out of control emotionally that night and his GUN became his POWER/CONTROL
They and only THEY are at their bottom line important...and they WILL DO ANYTHING to protect THEMSELVES and their IMAGE
And just because he tells the same "story" does not by any means prove he's not lying...gezzzz
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-27 03:16
The "Stumbles" as you put it...are VERY important details that show exactly how is he trying to lie his way out. Quiet obvious to , I'd say the majority and certainly obvious to many observing Prosecutors and Defense attorneys.
He BLEW HIS OWN defense team away ,by trying to outsmart Nel. Again, exactly what a narcissist would do, abandoning HIS OWN DEFENSE
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # T.Ruth Willout 2014-04-27 08:38
Hi Julia, with you all the way here !
I also would be able to look OP in the eye and give him a life sentence, NO problem.
My belief that he is a Narcissist, is absolutely based on the evidence we have heard so far and his behaviour/gener al demeanour/attit ude in court, paired with YEARS of research and for me, he ticks ALL the boxes, pretty textbook in fact.
These individuals are incredibly cunning, manipulative, volatile and potentially LETHAL.
They are compulsive/path ological liars, they lie to your face, they lie about lying; even when caught red handed 'banged to rights' about something, they will tell you that you are mistaken, that you must have 'imagined' it - they try to make you doubt your own sanity (gaslighting). They will say and do ANYTHING to save themselves and BLAME ANYONE/EVERYONE else. We have seen OP do this, repeatedly, saying everyone else is lying, wrong, mistaken : witnesses, friends, even his own legal team !!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-27 15:19
Yes Text book Narcissist ...it gives me the chills and creeps when I hear him go into his "story"
Brings back very hard memories
You are so right on T.Ruth !
Sounds like you've know one or two as well..
Unless you have really experienced all of what T.Ruth just perfectly described, you just can't know how dangerous and sick these people are.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # julia 2014-04-27 15:20
I'm not surprised people are walking around trying to still support this monster...typic al mesmerized effect narcissists create.
They usually choose strong partners too...as it sounded like Reeva was
Inside they are weak and cowardly. Their lies, distortions and image are what they bank on and this is why they will defend it to the death :sad: ...she must have some how called him on it.
I know when I did I was thrown to the ground with the person trying to strangle me, threatening to kill me if I didn't SHUT UP...he could not hear me speak the truth about what he really was. Same thing OP is doing with everything
Justice for Reeva!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # T.Ruth Willout 2014-04-28 16:27
Hi again Julia, I did wonder if your knowledge of NPD came about as the result of personal experience and it seems that you have also wondered the same about my particular 'insights'. It appears then that we were both correct and I am SO sorry that you had such a terrifying ordeal and also sorry that these discussions have caused you to revisit it.
Thankfully though, you did survive to tell the tale and raise awareness and your frankness about what happened to you, will hopefully help to wake others up to the very REAL danger of this, as yet, not particularly well known and often undiagnosed personality disorder. Which I believe to be an underlying causal factor in many of the most heinous crimes in our society, including child neglect/abuse.
The physical, mental and emotional damage wrought by these individuals cannot be underestimated.
I wish you well and continued healing.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # T.Ruth Willout 2014-04-27 10:07
To OP's long list of alleged liars and incompetents, I would also like to add : the police, because when questioned about the photos and position of certain items, OP claims the police must have 'moved' things and the firearms expert, who said (re the incident in Tasha's restaurant) that it was IMPOSSIBLE for that particular gun to be fired without someone squeezing the trigger.
So basically, for us to believe that OP is innocent and HONEST, we have to believe that a WHOLE BUNCH of other,very varied, unconnected and often professional people AREN'T; or are, at the very least, mistaken or incompetent.
Is there anyone out there who actually believes this to be the case ? Seriously ??!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Defender 2014-04-27 11:27
I agree with many of the things you and Deborah (and the other posters above) have said. You all have very valid points (obviously). BUT - believing something to be true and/or having a strong conviction doesn't make it true. It must be proven to be true - that is my argument. I wonder if the prosecution will manage to do that? I don't hope you are right but if you are then I do hope they can prove it. For me, the worst of all this is that, with all the problems and violence in SA, here we have a SA 'golden boy' and 'golden girl', both white and in a priviledged situation, possibly being the victim and perpetrator of this very kind of violent crime. But here there is no motive of poverty/disadva ntage/etc. There is no excuse. It would just be crazy and quite sickening really. But yes, your arguments are very convincing and brings to mind that saying "you can fool some people some of the time but not all the people all the time". Still, I hope we have an exception here.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-04-27 14:53
The standard is that you must show that the actual events (for there IS an actual objective sequence of events that occurred) fit with the evidence that we have, and that there is no more reasonable explanation for the events, not that the prosecution must prove it to be true without any denial about what happened coming from the defense. By your standard, as long as the defense has any scenario that if offers, then the case hasn't been "proven." If that were the court standard, then no one would ever be convicted as long as they did not confess.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Deborah 2014-04-27 15:23
Quote: If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of one's own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Defender 2014-04-28 01:09
Yes, I apologise. What I mean by 'prove' is 'satisfy beyond reasonable doubt'. Obviously they will have to have (and already do have) some hard evidence/proof but yes, satisfy beyond reasonable doubt is what I meant.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Sandra Dean 2014-04-30 19:20
The fact is... you can all say whatever you like, think whatever you like, but you will never know as you were not there. Only Oscar knows because, sadly, Reeva is not here to say. I just hope that the judge comes to the right conclusion.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Defender 2014-05-01 05:41
Quoting Sandra Dean:
I just hope that the judge comes to the right conclusion.

That's exactly it, Sandra, and why people here (and elsewhere) are discussing the case with such interest. There's the 'right decision' and then there's the 'best decision for everyone' and this seems to be a concern for many posters here. One poster has already mentioned the very contraversial OJ Simpson case and you just have to remember the Michael Jackson trials (and others as well). The courts aren't always infallible but also, in their wisdom, make unpopular decisions sometimes. One thing I'm sure of is that if the court does arrive at an unpopular decision we will hear less of it as time goes by until it will be almost impossible to find any more news on the whole affair. The public will eventually forget/care less about it and we will all move on. In the meantime there are a lot of people who don't want it brushed under the carpet and their interest is keeping the case high profile.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Sandra Dean 2014-05-01 09:10
It is high profile mainly because it has been televised - had it not been, we wouldn't have so much to say as we'd be relying on the facts (ha ha when they are real facts) from the papers etc. Just as in the Madeline case - children go missing every day but when it is deemed high profile by the media it is pumped into our minds every time we pick up a paper. I don't think the Oscar case should have been televised, especially as witnesses were watching before taking the stand. However, because it was televised, I have watched it with great interest.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # julia 2014-04-30 22:14
Yes Sandra, I think we are all aware of that most obvious fact...this is a "discussion group" doing exactly that... "discussing" it
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Sandra Dean 2014-05-01 08:57
It looks more like a 'I know what happened post' than a discussion post. Many people are saying they know exactly what happened, end of, and that is silly. A discussion is where you say what you think but are not totally adamant that you are right when you don't really know and are just summising that he is this or that, or this and that happened.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-05-01 17:33
Quoting Sandra Dean:
A discussion is where you say what you think but are not totally adamant that you are right when you don't really know and are just summising [surmising] that he is this or that, or this and that happened.

I'd agree that a discussion should be characterized by people listening to alternative perspectives, facts, and the possible varying interpretation of those facts. But the reason for that is because that path is most conducive to finding out the truth rather than being designed to let everyone feel good that they can give their opinions. The truth CAN be determined thru deduction and inference. This is in fact the norm in courtrooms. If we had to rely only on eyewitnesses (who are actually overall less reliable than empirical data and reason), then most court cases would be impossible to adjudicate and we'd have to throw up our hands and say that we can't determine the truth.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # julia 2014-05-01 15:24
Discussions are what they end up being..People expressing opinions and so forth...
Judging what or how people post is not yours or anyone's job..but the administrator of this "discussion" group
That's the essence of discussion...FR EEDOM of opinion
Huumm
Trial shouldn't have been televised
People shouldn't have certain opinions
Are there any other things you can set right for us?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # julia 2014-05-01 15:24
There are people on this discussion or any discussion group that might not agree, but their not trying to monitor/ control what people feel...geeezzzz
The world according to Sandra Dean.
Come on you guys , shape up and stop having opinions or relating any experience you might have had...cause Sandra Dean says it's not what "discussions" are, and you have no ability to see anything...WOW
Maybe you can also call the court and admonish them for televising too..
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Ian 2014-05-07 11:41
So Oscar is now accused of making sinister comments in court to a close friend of Reeva's that has led to a possible further investigation. This has happened in sight of numerous journalists, court staff and her friend's family ,and he still denies the encounter has happened. Is anyone else seeeing a pattern here?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-05-07 14:27
Amazing, isn't it? He's the one who should be asked: "How do you sleep at night?"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # julia 2014-05-07 16:03
Dennis this is typical narcissistic behavior, they believe they are above everything...an d push it.
He did this in front of witnesses, even a detective that testified against him heard him and reported it to Nel.
And then he denies it, which is of course part of the behavior too.
When he was originally arrested they told him he could go to jail for a long time, and his response was "I'll be alright" "I always win"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Craig Lipka 2014-05-10 20:12
Im a little confused about the forensic testing of the toilet.
For R to be in the toilet simply to use the toilet, it would easily show on a forensic swab test.Even if she did flush.(Most Burglars don't flush by the way.) By testing the toilet, this will show if she was there to get away from him or simply having a piss.... Case solved!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Johan 2014-05-14 04:07
Why was Reeva dressed up at 3 am on a V-night? What did they discussed up to 3 am? remember she stayed in Jburg without a bed in Pta. To my mind OP was plain jealous. He couldn't take it that she talk or texing someone else. OP knew she was not in bed. He knew she was hiding. The intruder is a madeup story. Did he put roses next to her bed?? No. He knew what will happen that night...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-05-14 08:05
Quoting Johan:
Why was Reeva dressed up at 3 am on a V-night?


I don't think she was 'dressed up' Johan. As far as I can recall, RS was wearing shorts and a vest top. I don't think anyone has made anything of this i.e. none of her family or close friends have come forward to say that RS would NEVER wear something like that in bed. As far as the run up to the shooting, OP's version has them asleep with a very brief conversational exchange just before he left the bed to bring in the fans. I would guess that about 99% of the people commenting here do not believe OP's version of events.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # chrissy 2014-05-16 04:00
as if reeva would not yell out at just one point of that crazy night. for that alone, he is guilty. no one would just stand there and not at the point when he yells out first to yell back. she was not a 5yo child, she was an intelligent woman. i have dated an abusive man, he could have killed me, it can be over absolutely anything, like can you pick up the towel in the bathroom please. they get paranoid and overreact enormously, eg chewing gum, i think he obviously has some mental condition but in terms of sentencing what does this mean.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # julia 2014-05-16 14:32
Nel has said that the state does not believe Pistorius has a mental illness, but told the judge the court must make the referral to avoid the possibility of the defense raising it in any future appeal.
Nel's "on the job"
Thank goodness
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # julia 2014-05-16 14:35
The defense had opposed the application by the state, pointing out that neither side was arguing that Pistorius was mentally ill when he shot Steenkamp. But its argument was undermined by evidence given by one of its own witnesses, forensic psychiatrist Dr Merryll Vorster, who told the court that Pistorius's generalized anxiety disorder, combined with his physical vulnerability – he had both lower legs amputated as a baby – could have affected his actions.
Nel is trying to close the door on any possibility of the defense using this for reduced sentence or appeal.
That's why defense was so upset...Nel is Brilliant
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # chrissy 2014-05-16 04:15
there are so many things against him. the gastric contents. the fact she didnt mk a noise. OP version she must have got up while he was at the curtains. how could he not have heard this. why didnt he call the ambulance straight away, most people would. he said she was breathing so why would you just hold her and not ring for ambulance. at times he said she was and then she wasnt breathing. did he call netcare, if so why, why not the ambulance. i think his version is so improbable but the fact he is who he is is clouding the judgement of people. abusive men are often socially likeable but are different to their partners.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Ian Bernadt 2014-05-18 15:54
Remember Phil Spector?He often pointed a pistol at female guests when they refused his advances.Then he shot and killed a beautiful blond girl at his home in very similar circumstances to Oscar.If Reeva had refused Oscar's advances especially at 3 am then he may well have done the same.Is there any evidence?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Calvin 2014-09-13 09:21
I live with my partner and got up during the middle of the night to go to the toilet, he got up about 30 sec after my and walk to the toilet in the dark and got such a big fright as he was not expecting me thought I was in bed.

Yes it Is strange that the door was locked BUT in all relationships that is not been long term relationship yet I also locked the toilet door, this only changed when you are been together for a long time and feel comfortable not 2.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Cut-thru-the-deceit 2014-09-16 00:16
Reeva's suitcase was packed...why??! !!! The toilet door was locked and she had her mobile phone with her...why??!!!!
In my opinion, her suitcase was packed because she wanted to leave. She wanted to leave because they had a major row, his behaviour frightened her and she withdrew to the only place where she could get away from Pistorius and feel safe, by locking him out while she phoned for help.....but he, in a rage, fired wildly through the door, knowing full well there was no cover in such a small room. The shot pattern is evidence of the shooter trying their best to kill (not wound) anyone behind that closed door.
It is CLEARLY murder. NOT manslaughter or culpable homicide. He MEANT to kill WHOEVER was behind that door, no matter whether he considered it to be an intruder or anyone else. That is STILL murder. iNTENT to kill! Pistorius is guilty of murder (2nd degree at least). He really should hang. Death penalty, for certain.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-09-16 06:38
Then prove it. Some very clever and expensive lawyers couldn't.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2014-09-16 12:44
OP's own accounts for that evening are contradictory. Moreover, what we know about human behavior is contrary to what he claims. For ex., he says that he didn't check to see if Reeva was in bed with him before he got up to deal w/ an "intruder." The toilet room door was locked by Reeva. Neighbors heard a very loud argument and then screams while shots were fired. The judge's ruling is wrong and contrary to the evidence and testimony.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Cut-thru-the-deceit 2014-09-16 14:34
Quoting KC:
Then prove it. Some very clever and expensive lawyers couldn't.

It is the opinion of the majority of the South African legal society that the prosecution have already proven it and their evaluation that the judges 'conclusions' are incorrect - especially as she has surprisingly disregarded a great deal of witness testimony.
I understand perfectly that for a murder conviction PROOF must be sought. Despite that, common sense points to possible versions of events that all lead to a degree of premeditation. OP has a history of hair-trigger anger. Mix that with a loaded firearm and you have a volatile set of circumstances and a ticking bomb! It was only a matter of time before his recklessness was going to seriously hurt someone.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # KC 2014-09-16 21:47
Fortunate then that the law does not simply allow you to hang people based on common sense.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Gapie 2014-10-02 12:35
Oscar.
He continues to lie .
He has a bad temper.
He lied about his past life and lies about his present killing.
He cries like a puppy dog when he can’t answer the question.
He knows he is guilty .
He is a sad case for a man, I feel people like this should be put in a mental hospital or locked up forever.
He can’t control his emotions and cries like a baby when he does wrong.
He is a threat to the human race because he is unstable.
I have never come across a person who is so obsessed with evil in everything he does.
He is a true devil from hell. He will never own up like a man he would rather Salk in the corner.
He wants the world to feel sorry for him.
I hope he suffers and goes to hell.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.


Security code
Refresh