General Discussion Thread #1 -Bail Hearing

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
not to be too pedantic, but a jurist is not a juror. a judge, magistrate, etc is a jurist.

Thank you, joe jones and Lola, for clarifying that!
 
Then take it a step further and ask why he had break down the door with the bat after he shot. If you were trying to get to someone, wouldn't you break down the door first, then shoot them (so you know you got them)?

not if you thought it was an intruder, if you genuinely thought somebody had got in your house and was in your toilet (we don't know yet if he tried the door pre the shooting to know if it was locked at that point or he tried the door post the shooting to find it locked) I know I would shoot first as I would not know what was behind that door, the intruder could have had a gun, it would have been a braver person than me who would open that door not knowing what was behind it,

if you thought it was Reeva then yes I think he would have broken down door before he shot her so he could see her and make sure he shot her not at her, if that was what he was aiming to do

or he could have just shot the lock off the door to get at her, so the door being broken open post the shooting points more towards him not knowing who or what was behind the door
 
They are fighting he pulls out a gun she runs away he runs after her in a fury and shoots her. Legs were already on because they'd been fighting not sleeping.

I've got a feeling he's going to get out of this via a bribe.

I tend to agree with this...because if they were fighting and his legs were off she could probably have outrun him and gotten all the way out of the home instead of having to hide in the bathroom. He obviously knew she was by the toilet as maybe he heard her make noises by bumping it or something. I think he would have remembered the DOGS when he went to bring in the fan from the balcony as they would have been right there right?
 
not if you thought it was an intruder, if you genuinely thought somebody had got in your house and was in your toilet (we don't know yet if he tried the door pre the shooting to know if it was locked at that point or he tried the door post the shooting to find it locked) I know I would shoot first as I would not know what was behind that door, the intruder could have had a gun, it would have been a braver person than me who would open that door not knowing what was behind it,
He said in his statement that he only realised the door was locked after the shooting and realizing that Reeva could have possibly been in there.
 
not to be too pedantic, but a jurist is not a juror. a judge, magistrate, etc is a jurist.


I knew that which is why I posted he would be tried by jurists, a group of judges
 
He said in his statement that he only realised the door was locked after the shooting and realizing that Reeva could have possibly been in there.

thanks for that, so he did not check door pre the shooting which again points to his opinion it was an intruder, if he thought Reeva was in there or knew she wasin there he would have possibly tried the door so that he couldopen it and go in after her

in saying he did not try the door could indicate he did not know who was in there and he shot first to eliminate the threat that was behind the door,

it would be so much easier to shoot her without a door in the way so surely he would have tried the door to get at her if he was in a rage and going after her,

then again maybe he was beyond reason and just shot through the door in rage
 
Did Reeva turn on the bathroom light when she went in there and locked her self in? Cause seems he might figure out she was in there and pottying if the light was on.
 
thanks for that, so he did not check door pre the shooting which again points to his opinion it was an intruder, if he thought Reeva was in there or knew she wasin there he would have possibly tried the door so that he couldopen it and go in after her

in saying he did not try the door could indicate he did not know who was in there and he shot first to eliminate the threat that was behind the door,

it would be so much easier to shoot her without a door in the way so surely he would have tried the door to get at her if he was in a rage and going after her,

then again maybe he was beyond reason and just shot through the door in rage

Yea this was what I was getting at. These scenarios where he chased her into the bathroom and she locked the door to get away from him doesn't explain the reasons for breaking the door down after he was done shooting. She also had no defensive wounds on her or any indication she had been fighting with him.

It'll be interesting to see ballistics as well. I'm curious how the investigator is so confident on the angle of the shots. He didn't seem real confident in anything else he said today.
 
Just found this info elsewhere for anyone interested
Taken from our constitution:

The principle is simple: the life of the attacker can only be taken in order to protect your or someone else’s life or to prevent serious bodily harm. It is unlawful to use lethal force in any other circumstances. In other words, your property is not worth the life of the person that is stealing it from you!

The very long legal version
http://www.iss.org.za/pubs/CrimeQ/No.8/duPlessis.htm
 
Just trying to catch up, but these are my first thoughts:

Why did she lock the door to the bathroom? Who does that in a home they are living in?

Why would he shoot through a door without knowing who or what was behind it? Seems very reckless if you are simply afraid of an "intruder."
 
Yea this was what I was getting at. These scenarios where he chased her into the bathroom and she locked the door to get away from him doesn't explain the reasons for breaking the door down after he was done shooting. She also had no defensive wounds on her or any indication she had been fighting with him.

It'll be interesting to see ballistics as well. I'm curious how the investigator is so confident on the angle of the shots. He didn't seem real confident in anything else he said today.

OF course it does explain it. He had to see if she was dead or not, cause if she was alive she could discount his story. I can see someone running for protection in a bathroom without any wounds on them especially if the person chasing you has a gun and you didn't physically fight with them prior to them picking up the gun. Could have been a verbal altercation, then the gun was picked up and she started to run for cover. Seems plausible to me.
 
not if you thought it was an intruder, if you genuinely thought somebody had got in your house and was in your toilet (we don't know yet if he tried the door pre the shooting to know if it was locked at that point or he tried the door post the shooting to find it locked) I know I would shoot first as I would not know what was behind that door, the intruder could have had a gun, it would have been a braver person than me who would open that door not knowing what was behind it,

if you thought it was Reeva then yes I think he would have broken down door before he shot her so he could see her and make sure he shot her not at her, if that was what he was aiming to do

or he could have just shot the lock off the door to get at her, so the door being broken open post the shooting points more towards him not knowing who or what was behind the door

It's for this very reason that I believe he knew who he was shooting at. If a burglar had locked themselves in the toilet, IMO, one would simply lock the secondary bathroom door and call the police. Shooting into a closed door, IMO, indicates he knew who was behind it. An armed intruder does not need to lock themselves in a bathroom. I think OP's lawyers are using the (apparently) commonplace fear in SA of intruders to their advantage, but I don't believe that OP thought an armed intruder had locked himself in the bathroom or that his girlfriend was still in bed.
 
OF course it does explain it. He had to see if she was dead or not, cause if she was alive she could discount his story. I can see someone running for protection in a bathroom without any wounds on them especially if the person chasing you has a gun and you didn't physically fight with them prior to them picking up the gun. Could have been a verbal altercation, then the gun was picked up and she started to run for cover. Seems plausible to me.

then why not run down the stairs, seems an odd place to run to if you are being chased by somebody with a gun,
why did he have to shoot through the door if he knew Reeva was in there and he was after her, he could have smashed the door down pre the shooting and then made sure his shots hit her, he could not see through the door therefore if she was lying on the floor all his shots through the door would have missed her,
 
Why did she lock the door to the bathroom? Who does that in a home they are living in?

Lots of people do. The locked door proves nothing by itself.

She wasn't living there, she was an overnight guest.
 
OF course it does explain it. He had to see if she was dead or not, cause if she was alive she could discount his story. I can see someone running for protection in a bathroom without any wounds on them especially if the person chasing you has a gun and you didn't physically fight with them prior to them picking up the gun. Could have been a verbal altercation, then the gun was picked up and she started to run for cover. Seems plausible to me.

If he was chasing her with a gun why wait until she was behind a door then just start shooting blind, then get the cricket bat to bash the door down. Wouldn't you first break the door, then start shooting (to know that you hit your target)?

Better question, if she was truly hiding from him, once she got in the bathroom, wouldn't a person get away from the door so not to be the target of bullets coming through it?
 
then why not run down the stairs, seems an odd place to run to if you are being chased by somebody with a gun,

If it's true that the bedroom door was locked, that would have cost time even if the key was in the lock. Then no doubt there were multiple locks and security devices which might have made getting out of the house problematical (she didn't live there, remember). No, I think the toilet was a natural refuge, being the nearest place she would quickly think of where she could easily lock herself in.
 
Although myself, my boyfriend and other friends of mine frequently take their phones to the toilet...

your phones don't end up with blood splatter on it.

If she carried the phone in the bathroom to use then she was awake. If he screamed call the police then her phone should have dialed 911. Remember he said he did not have his leg on and was in the bedroom. This would give Reeva time to dial before the shots. If she did not hear him then she would have started dialog identifying her location. which would have changed everything.

If it was the truth he would have called out to Reeva and expected some kind of acknowledgement when he hobbled to the bed to retrieve the gun.

The affidavit is written for effect. He states that he feared for Reeva's and my safety yet the end results is he had no idea where she was and never once got a confirmation from her until after the shooting.

The truth is the truth and it just keeps popping out.

Once again apply real life logic.

Botha: I found a holster for the firearm on the same side I found the overnight bag and slippers.


People who have and place slippers by their beds use them. People who don't, don't bother the carry them or have them. Remember the slipper most likely came with overnight bag which means that she uses them. If she woke up in the middle of the night to go the bathroom the slippers would be on her not under the bed by the holster.

Inobu
 
It's for this very reason that I believe he knew who he was shooting at. If a burglar had locked themselves in the toilet, IMO, one would simply lock the secondary bathroom door and call the police. Shooting into a closed door, IMO, indicates he knew who was behind it. An armed intruder does not need to lock themselves in a bathroom. I think OP's lawyers are using the (apparently) commonplace fear in SA of intruders to their advantage, but I don't believe that OP thought an armed intruder had locked himself in the bathroom or that his girlfriend was still in bed.

I think it is very plausible that that is what he may have thought, if it went down as he says he was not thinking he was reacting and acting automatically, he got the gun and he fired all within a few moments,

I doubt he ever planned to murder her, if he did shoot her it was a result of rage and an immediate response to the situation,

I can see the intruder theory being more plausible for me at the moment, but do not discount the idea that he deliberately shot her,
 
Lots of people do. The locked door proves nothing by itself.

She wasn't living there, she was an overnight guest.

She was more than a guest, she was sleeping with the owner. I've read that the toilet room had no windows, so if she had gone in there to use the toilet and locked the door, in the middle of the night, wouldn't she have turned the light on? What sort of burglar turns the light on when they are hiding from the homeowner? IMO, the story OP's lawyers have put together is very well played, but I think it stinks to high heaven.
 
If it's true that the bedroom door was locked, that would have cost time even if the key was in the lock. Then no doubt there were multiple locks and security devices which might have made getting out of the house problematical (she didn't live there, remember). No, I think the toilet was a natural refuge, being the nearest place she would quickly think of where she could easily lock herself in.


I don't get that logic, a man with a gun versus a locked toilet door, or an attempt to get down the stairs, she would have known how little protection the toilet offered her
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
1,668
Total visitors
1,777

Forum statistics

Threads
601,813
Messages
18,130,207
Members
231,147
Latest member
SammyC37
Back
Top