gxm
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 24
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!
not to be too pedantic, but a jurist is not a juror. a judge, magistrate, etc is a jurist.
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)?
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.
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 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,
not to be too pedantic, but a jurist is not a juror. a judge, magistrate, etc is a jurist.
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
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.
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
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.
Why did she lock the door to the bathroom? Who does that in a home they are living in?
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,
Although myself, my boyfriend and other friends of mine frequently take their phones to the toilet...
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.
Lots of people do. The locked door proves nothing by itself.
She wasn't living there, she was an overnight guest.
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.