General Discussion Thread #2

[SyraKelly]

I'm confused about the bullet casing. Don't most guns eject the casings so they land in an area basically where the shooter is standing?

So how would there be a bullet casing in the toilet?

Or do they really mean that they found a bullet in the toilet?

If so, wouldn't that prove that Reeva was not sitting on or using the toilet when she was shot?

This is an excellent point
can someone please refresh my memory on what type gun he used?TIA

 

[jjenny]

Can someone tell me why it is impossible for OP to know Reeva was in bed when he got up to go to the balcony?
He wakens up it is very dark, he knows Reeva is still lying beside him, he goes to balcony,moments later (that's all the time it would take for Reeva to get up) he hears a noise coming from bathroom, still believing Reeva is in bed he mistakenly believes there is an intruder in bathroom.
Moments earlier Reeva was in bed asleep. He was busy at the balcony and did not realise she had got up. His mind set tells him that. He calls out as if he is calling to an intruder. Reeva may have heard him shouting that there was an intruder, or she may not have heard him.
If she did hear him she would stay put in bathroom for her own safety, believing that OP had encountered someone on the balcony, where she last saw him.
If she did not hear OP calling out she would have been none the wiser.
As her bladder was empty at time of death it looks like Reeva had just wakened up and nipped to the toilet unseen by OP.
I have read somewhere that it is unusual for the bladder to be empty at 3 in the morning, which I imagine would be true.
I think this is a classic case of THE TRUTH BEING STRANGER THAN FICTION or as some people say "YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP".
Give the guy a break until he has had a fair trial.

You seem to conviniently forget that in order to get his gun, he had to go back to the bed. Since he was keeping his gun under his bed.
So how is that he didn't see she was not in bed when he was getting his gun from under the bed?

 

[weeeva]

but that is your idea of what is reasonable, what is reckless, I look at it from his point of view, to me from reading many interviews he was concerned about his safety, he has come home before and heard a noise (washing machine) and got his gun out as he thought it may be an intruder, he was jumpy and paranoid about his personal safety,

he has said he felt vulnerable when his legs were off,

so looking at it from his point of view I can very easily imagine he wakes, it's dark, he hears a noise, he grabs his gun (which he has said he has done before when he heard noises in his home) he says he has no legs on so maybe felt he could not fight, he thinks his GF is in bed, he lives in SA where rape/home invasion is a massive problem, he acts without thinking to protect (as he says) himself and his GF, it probably happened within a few minutes from hearing noise to shots (if his story is how it happened) so how much conscious thought would he have had, he may have been acting on instinct

now I have never held or seen a handgun in my country(England) I have seen them in other countries but have still never held one, I have never felt the need to have a gun, I live in an area that is considered safe, I don't have prosthetics, so I would expect I would have done things differently

Totally agree, but you won't get any thanks on here for your rationale.

 

[Carol70]

One other aspect of the case so far that seens odd is that per the reporting, when police arrived on scene, OP's lawyer was already there - either SAPS reaction time is very slow or his lawyer lives nearby. I think that if Australian detectives turned up at very recent crime scene and found a defence lawyer already there, he might be getting locked up too!

What do you think?

I actually think that when Botha arrived on the scene, his lawyer was there...a normal squaddie would have been there pretty much same time as the paramedics. Squaddie would have called the detective indicating a murder had taken place.

 

[Estelle]

I also hope to see a reconstruction. According to statement, the door and blinds were closed just before the shooting, he only opened the door again after the shooting to scream for help. I also want to add that most houses in SA, not sure if its the same in other places, but our bathroom windows glass is normally the type of glass you cannot look out of...we generally don't put curtains in our bathrooms...the glass is like a thick glazed type, can't see in nor out.

Crime scene reconstruction

http://www.enotes.com/crime-scene-reconstruction-reference/crime-scene-reconstruction

 

[Patticake]

Pistorius tweets thanks on first day out on bail

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130223/pistorius-tweets-thanks-first-day-out-bail

.

 

[Estelle]

This is an excellent point
can someone please refresh my memory on what type gun he used?TIA

I became suspicious of OP's lawyer when he said he found a bullet in the toilet because he arrived before Botha and I assumed he took it himself to show Botha up which did not seem right to me. Also the other mobile which he had not given to the police.

 

[Carol70]

I became suspicious of OP's lawyer when he said he found a bullet in the toilet because he arrived before Botha and I assumed he took it himself to show Botha up which did not seem right to me. Also the other mobile which he had not given to the police.

I dont understand?
The defense team and their forensics were only given access to the house the day after the crime, after the state forensics and investigation was over afaik.

 

[shane13]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c1#/video/world/2013/02/22/tsr-foreman-magic-wall-pistorius.cnn

some excellent visuals here

 

[gitana1]

I agree if she was in there with a phone, him flipping out on her or intruder, she would have called someone for assistance.

Bathroom may have been only place to get away from very angry person you do not think is going to murder you, or, she was already in there as he says.

We do not know if she was ever sitting on the toilet.

If someone is scared and hiding in a bathroom, I don't think they would be standing. The usual defense is to make the body smaller so I imagine she was sitting. In RSA, I imagine toilets are like in Australia and NZ - separate from the shower and sink. They tend, thus, to be small spaces. Not a lot of room to do much more than sit.

It's already been mentioned how it seems odd that, according to OP's account, he goes from being incredibly fearful and on high alert to just dropping his gun and stumbling back to the bedroom.

According to his statement it only occurs to him that it might have been Reeva in the bathroom when he reaches the bed.

So before this point and after the shooting I would have expected him to still be on high alert, closing the bathroom window, holding his gun and not letting go of it until he gets to the bedroom.

But according to his statement he drops his gun, leaves the bathroom window open and goes back to the bedroom, with his back to this entry point (open window), with the light off.

This is the most powerful evidence I have seen yet to point to this not being an accident. Great catch and great thinking. A person so scared they are prompted to shoot at an unknown intruder would never let go of their weapon and turn their back on the area where the intruder was.

Going with OP's story, the noises that he heard that might have startled him could only have been a few things: Toilet door closing, key turning in the lock, flipping down toilet seat, usage, flush.

But seeing as she would have closed the door quietly, and only turned the key in the lock after she heard him shout, we can assume that the accidental slamming of toilet seat, usage and flush are the only sounds.

Like the prosecution argued, what burglar comes to use your toilet?

Someone posted that in RSA, robbers and home invaders often come in through the bathroom. So it's not that they would be using the bathroom but he could have thought they just broke in through there.

Weak point for the defense in the locked toilet.

If the crime is very bad there, as stated in articles, most burglars would come in with some type of weapon and ready to do harm to get the goods. They would not lock the door. How do they know if the security guard with the machine gone is coming or not. Would not know if house had the locking doors/gates and panic buttons in high priced neighborhood.

The balcony window and bedroom window were open. Sure that is an invitation to a burglar, but not in a high priced "secure complex" neighborhood. Again, burglar would know enough to be armed and to fight to get the goods, and not lock self in the bathroom with no escape. Burglar would have taken time to watch the building for a long time before entering a place that should be known as secure, and know if there were dwellers inside.

If there was known alarm system, as was in an article, they would do what they do here. Cut the wires or enter the digital/electronic system and scramble the codes.

Or we just have criminals that learn too much from each other in jail and come out with more knowledge on how to get away clean here.

He didn't know the door was locked apparently until after he couldn't find Reeva.

I'm curious as to why Reeva would be creeping around the house before alerting OP considering the high chance that a home invasion could occur. As a SA women and a close friend of his, she would know of his concerns, no?

The only thing that would make sense to me is if she was actually trying to sneak out and be gone when he woke up. But then it's being reported she was gunned down in the bathroom. Why did/would he move her to the bottom of the stairs? If truly an accident, wouldn't he leave her where the accident happened - why move her? :waitasec: Did he think it would look better if she was found at the bottom of the stairs (even though the evidence would reveal she had been shot elsewhere?).

He stated she was still alive and he was trying to get her to his car downstairs when she died in his arms.

I did read it, but it's so completely unrelated to this case that it makes no sense at all for you to bring it up. It's like someone saying "Well totally unrelated but maybe when he came back inside he found her in bed with another man and just snapped and killed them both and hid the body of the man."

Why bring it in, it's a really bad way of looking at the scenario because you are comparing a mental state that would make sense for rage to that degree to a person where it doesn't match at all.

He wasn't violent with her. Domestic violence escalates, it very rarely will start off with him shooting her four times. If he's roid raged out, then yes OK MAYBE that would make sense, but there's no evidence of this yet.

it seems many people are looking at the evidence with confirmation bias, only accepting the evidence that bolster's their belief and totally ignoring the evidence that challenges it.

Examples.

She didn't call anyone
She wasn't beaten or bruised
There was no evidence of a fight in the room
There is NO EVIDENCE of sexy text messages or evidence that he busted her talking to some "other guy." Don't you think her family would put that out there immediately if this is what happened?

His story has things that need answering. Ex. Why didn't she answer from the bathroom. Why didn't he call the police immediately when he thought she might be in the bathroom, Why did he move the body,

But I'm seeing no motive for this killing. What is the motive?

No, I don;t think her family would release information the police might find pivotal to the prosecution.

Domestic violence needs little motive. Violent, angry people need little justification to go from zero to 60 in seconds. There are tons of people on here who have been victims of domestic abusers who can tell you how they can change on a dime and can be motivated to become enraged by the smallest things, lie they don;t like the way their mate answers a question or is looking at them.

I represent a lot of victims of domestic violence and know the patterns pretty well. It is totally plausible that he became enraged and in a split second, grabbed his gun, chased her with it and shot her to death.

Also, apparently there is evidence of prior calls to the home of a "domestic nature".

So he loses to the guy in the Olympics. He starts claiming that the other guy didn't win fairly because the blades were too long.
And that after arguing that blades didn't give himself an unfair advantage in order to participate in regular Olympics and races.
I don't think he has this angelic personality some people seem to think he has.

Not one person on here has said he has an angelic personality. The believe by some that he just may be innocent does not equate to the belief that he was angelic.

 

[cityslick]

If someone is scared and hiding in a bathroom, I don't think they would be standing. The usual defense is to make the body smaller so I imagine she was sitting. In RSA, I imagine toilets are like in Australia and NZ - separate from the shower and sink. They tend, thus, to be small spaces. Not a lot of room to do much more than sit.



This is the most powerful evidence I have seen yet to point to this not being an accident. Great catch and great thinking. A person so scared they are prompted to shoot at an unknown intruder would never let go of their weapon and turn their back on the area where the intruder was.



Someone posted that in RSA, robbers and home invaders often come in through the bathroom. So it's not that they would be using the bathroom but he could have thought they just broke in through there.



He didn't know the door was locked apparently until after he couldn't find Reeva.



He stated she was still alive and he was trying to get her to his car downstairs when she died in his arms.



No, I don;t think her family would release information the police might find pivotal to the prosecution.

Domestic violence needs little motive. Violent, angry people need little justification to go from zero to 60 in seconds. There are tons of people on here who have been victims of domestic abusers who can tell you how they can change on a dime and can be motivated to become enraged by the smallest things, lie they don;t like the way their mate answers a question or is looking at them.

I represent a lot of victims of domestic violence and know the patterns pretty well. It is totally plausible that he became enraged and in a split second, grabbed his gun, chased her with it and shot her to death.

Also, apparently there is evidence of prior calls to the home of a "domestic nature".



Not one person on here has said he has an angelic personality. The believe by some that he just may be innocent does not equate to the belief that he was angelic.

BBM

I'd still like to know how his prosthetics would of played into her chasing her. Did he have them on the entire time? Did he put them on while they would've been arguing?

I remember the spokeperson quoted as saying this but I was pretty surprised this was never brought up in court during the bail hearing. I would think it would be relevant in determining if he was violent or what the calls pertained too.

 

[Patticake]

Pistorius tweets thanks on first day out on bail

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130223/pistorius-tweets-thanks-first-day-out-bail

.

In fairness to OP I want to say that I think the headline above is unfair and misleading. OP has not Tweeted since 02/12.

https://twitter.com/OscarPistorius

I believe a family member has Tweeted..

.

 

[Carol70]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c1#/video/world/2013/02/22/tsr-foreman-magic-wall-pistorius.cnn

some excellent visuals here

Thanks, that's a great vid.

 

[joe jones]

I became suspicious of OP's lawyer when he said he found a bullet in the toilet because he arrived before Botha and I assumed he took it himself to show Botha up which did not seem right to me. Also the other mobile which he had not given to the police.

OPs team found the bullet in the toilet after the police had handed the house back to them once they had supposedly finished processing the scene, police or police forensics missed the bullet in the toilet bowl, I wonder what else they missed

 

[Zinn]

OP is in the position of defending himself after shooting his girlfriend through a locked door. Either his statements are based in truth or they are tailored to explain how it theoretically could have happened, given the evidence he believes could be found at the scene and reported by neighbors. If any part of his story is fabricated, it is a given that he is taking potential evidence into account when making his statement.

I've seen a few references to OP "chasing Reeva with a gun" and I'm not sure where that claim originated, but the fact is we don't yet know when and why OP armed himself, and we don't know if Reeva knew OP was armed when she locked the bathroom door. We don't know if the original intention of arming himself was to shoot an intruder, shoot Reeva, threaten Reeva, perhaps even threaten to shoot himself if she did not emerge from the bathroom. It's interesting that one casing was found in a location different from the other three, but this doesn't necessarily mean there was a chase. We don't know if the first shot was a warning shot meant to threaten Reeva or a perceived intruder, or maybe even a shot designed to make Reeva fear he was harming himself.

We also don't know why Reeva locked herself in the bathroom. She may have feared for her life, or she may have been escaping an hour of verbal abuse or unwanted sexual advances after an argument, or she may have needed a private place to attempt to call or text someone for help or scream out of an open window, or she may have had to use the toilet.

Do we even know for sure that all shots were fired into the bathroom? I tend to think so given what the prosecution has revealed so far, but I'm not certain. For instance, are we certain the blood spatter in the hallway is a result of OP carrying Reeva down the stairs as she was taking her last breaths? I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but I recall hearing that the blood spatter in the hallway supposedly proves she was still alive when OP brought her down from the bathroom. I suppose this is important to prove he was not attempting to move a dead body out of his home when he was intercepted at his front door? But is there any possibility she was shot once before or after entering the bathroom and the blood spatter was from her running up or down the stairs before finally being shot in the head? Or has that been ruled out at this point? Perhaps we won't know until the actual trial.

All of the above is pure speculation and just my opinion.

 

[Carol70]

Pistorius tweets thanks on first day out on bail

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130223/pistorius-tweets-thanks-first-day-out-bail

.

The family have stated that Carl's account was hacked and that it was not a message posted from anyone in the family!!

 

[cityslick]

OP is in the position of defending himself after shooting his girlfriend through a locked door. Either his statements are based in truth or they are tailored to explain how it theoretically could have happened, given the evidence he believes could be found at the scene and reported by neighbors. If any part of his story is fabricated, it is a given that he is taking potential evidence into account when making his statement.

I've seen a few references to OP "chasing Reeva with a gun" and I'm not sure where that claim originated, but the fact is we don't yet know when and why OP armed himself, and we don't know if Reeva knew OP was armed when she locked the bathroom door. We don't know if the original intention of arming himself was to shoot an intruder, shoot Reeva, threaten Reeva, perhaps even threaten to shoot himself if she did not emerge from the bathroom. It's interesting that one casing was found in a location different from the other three, but this doesn't necessarily mean there was a chase. We don't know if the first shot was a warning shot meant to threaten Reeva or a perceived intruder, or maybe even a shot designed to make Reeva fear he was harming himself.

We also don't know why Reeva locked herself in the bathroom. She may have feared for her life, or she may have been escaping an hour of verbal abuse or unwanted sexual advances after an argument, or she may have needed a private place to attempt to call or text someone for help or scream out of an open window, or she may have had to use the toilet.

Do we even know for sure that all shots were fired into the bathroom? I tend to think so given what the prosecution has revealed so far, but I'm not certain. For instance, are we certain the blood spatter in the hallway is a result of OP carrying Reeva down the stairs as she was taking her last breaths? I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but I recall hearing that the blood spatter in the hallway supposedly proves she was still alive when OP brought her down from the bathroom. I suppose this is important to prove he was not attempting to move a dead body out of his home when he was intercepted at his front door? But is there any possibility she was shot once before or after entering the bathroom and the blood spatter was from her running up or down the stairs before finally being shot in the head? Or has that been ruled out at this point? Perhaps we won't know until the actual trial.

All of the above is pure speculation and just my opinion.

All viable questions. One of the reasons why all possible scenarios should be on the table (yes, even his own story) as the truth.

 

[Zinn]

OPs team found the bullet in the toilet after the police had handed the house back to them once they had supposedly finished processing the scene, police or police forensics missed the bullet in the toilet bowl, I wonder what else they missed

Did they claim to have found it lodged in the porcelain, or actually in the toilet bowl? If they claim to have found it in the toilet bowl, that is especially distressing as I assume they should have tested the contents of the bowl.

JMO

 

[cityslick]

Did they claim to have found it lodged in the porcelain, or actually in the toilet bowl? If they claim to have found it in the toilet bowl, that is especially distressing as I assume they should have tested the contents of the bowl.

JMO

IMO I don't think the processed the scene correctly at all.

 

[joe jones]

Did they claim to have found it lodged in the porcelain, or actually in the toilet bowl? If they claim to have found it in the toilet bowl, that is especially distressing as I assume they should have tested the contents of the bowl.

JMO

don't know if the exact site of the bullet from toilet was mentioned in court, but that toilet was where she was shot so the forensics and police should not have missed vital evidence,