Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by skatefan, Feb 14, 2013.
Agree with this; I don't think any assumptions can be made about the door being locked.
That's why I said I wonder if it's a habit. I know there are people who do.
I don't know if it's a female thing to do or not. I don't think I have ever locked a bathroom door at home, and I don't close it when I am in the house by myself or in the middle of the night, either. But I don't know if that makes me the anomaly or you.
If it was something she usually did, it's not suspicious. If it's something she didn't normally do, it is.
Same thing with her being dressed. If she normally slept in shorts and a tank top, that's normal. If she didn't, it isn't.
And so on.
According to Pistorius, the entire bathroom, which had a separate small room for the toilet, was completely dark. Apparently the bedroom was also dark, since Pistorius claims he didn't notice her absence from her side of the bed, from which he retrieved the gun. Even with privacy as a concern, it seems off that a woman goes from a dark bedroom into an adjacent dark bathroom in the middle of the night, goes into the dark toilet room within that dark bathroom, and still feels the need to lock the door. This alone isn't the smoking gun, but it doesn't look good.
If one is staggering to the bathroom half asleep in the dark, I'm not sure she would have felt any need other than to pee. I think that for many, locking doors is a habit that you don't even think about, whether it's the front door or the bathroom door - you do it automatically. On more than one occasion I have come in from the yard, only to hear my husband knocking a few minutes later because I locked the door without even realizing it.
The weird thing to me is that she supposedly made no verbal noise or comment after 1) Oscar said there was an intruder and told her to call the police and 2) got shot the first time (and she didnt die right away, per Oscar). And then, I still dont know who doesnt check to ensure a guest is not the one in the bathroom before shooting a gun through a closed door.
If any of you have guests and hear noises in the bathroom, PLEASE make sure it is not them before shooting up the toilet, will you?
Maybe it was an accident of some sort, but I dont think his version of events is completely true.
This is one problem I have with Oscar's story. If the house was so dark, we're expected to believe that Reeva went to the bathroom without turning on ANY lights...not in the hallway or even the bathroom? Right.
Regarding him hearing a noise and thinking it was an intruder...sure, if he were alone. But he wasn't!! Hearing a noise, the first thing he would do is see if it's Reeva. But no. He instead grabs his gun, puts on his legs, shouts out at the supposed intruder, fires 4 shots, THEN decides to see what's going on with Reeva.
Regarding him not realizing Reeva wasn't in bed...eyes get adjusted to the dark. It is extremely dark when the lights are first turned off, but unless the bedroom has no windows (which I doubt), eventually you can easily make things out--ESPECIALLY a person in bed or not in bed!
Then there's South Africa's high crime. Sure, but I suspect that just like in other countries, those who live in rich, high-priced gated communities are rarely affected. He must not have been THAT concerned with crime violence considering the balcony door was left open during the night.
In the words of Judge Judy, if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true. But, I suspect he'll likely walk as most celebrities do.
I wonder if he would agree to a lie detector test?
Oh man, release Judge Judy on this guy.
"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!"
I never turn on lights when I get up to go the bathroom at night. And yes, I've walked into many walls and been impaled by the bed post, but the lights hurt my eyes and often disturb my husband. There really is no trouble peeing in the dark.
I believe the killing of Reeva was an accident, but I also think something unusual happened that night that caused this tragedy. Maybe Pistorius snapped or maybe he was partially conscious, was in a trance or even sleepwalking ? I just don't think he was totally aware of everything he did that night.
This is in NO way accusing Reeva of anything, but I'm thinking that the ONLY way Oscar's story holds up is if Reeva was locked in the bathroom alone, zonked out, doing drugs. Drug users will often sneak themselves into the bathroom late at night to take care of their habit, and then they might pass out on the toilet, and that's one of the ONLY scenarios I can think of where Oscar's story MIGHT be credible. But even then, to shoot through a bathroom door four times without a "OPEN UP OR I'LL SHOOT!" "IT'S ME, REEVA!" just defies credibility.
In this case police would want to see if there were any drugs in Reeva's system or telltale marks like needles or a pipe nearby. But again, I'm just not buying it. I actually think the 'roid rage theory is more credible, and Reeva probably went to the bathroom to hide.
Maybe he had taken a certain sleeping medication...
I think when a person is protecting his home he's often more willing to let the bad guy "have it" then to give him a chance to surrender.
This case actually sort of reminds me of the Central Park Preppie murder case. In the 1980's, a high school senior was found dead in Central Park and she was killed by her on-again, off-again lover Robert Chambers. The police couldn't find any motive, since they'd only known each other a short period, and the relationship was one of casual sex (and thus not the typical escalating/obsessive domestic violence murders.) He claimed it was an accidental case of rough sex gone wrong, and since people were stumped for a motive they sort of believed him. It wasn't till the trial that people found out he had a long history of crime, and was a drug addict prone to violent rages. His wealthy doting family had covered up his troubled history. In Oscar's case I think a lot of dirty laundry is going to come out and the case will make more sense in the coming weeks and months.
You would think that Ambien would be mentioned by now if that had been a factor.
Maybe she didn't make a sound after he shouted about an intruder because she believed him and didn't want to alert the intruder to her presence?
I don't turn on the lights to go to the bathroom or anywhere else for the same reason. I often go downstairs to the kitchen to get a drink or take a motrin or whatever. I never run into anything. But I've lived here a long time.
Reeva and Oscar had been dating for three months, I think? And she wasn't living there. So while it might be likely that she would turn on a light, it could be equally likely that she would be running into things and making odd noises in the bathroom if she didn't. Again, it would depend on what she normally did.
I find the defense attorney's argument that she locked the door and was quiet after Oscar yelled at her to call the police to be odder. Wouldn't she have been right behind the door in that case? I thought Oscar was already at the door when he yelled and he fired right away.
I know a lot of people who keep guns in their homes and if they thought someone was in breaking into their houses, they would unload a magazine in nothing flat. Bam bam bam bam. None of them think if terms of firing a warning shot or hoping that one bullet hits the target; all of them think in terms of shooting until the threat is no more.
And while Reeva didn't die right away, she could very well have been incapacitated by the first shot and incapable of yelling at Oscar. If he was still firing, he probably wouldn't have heard her if she did.
I do know this--the prosecutor better have that detective in better shape for defense questioning when this goes to trial.
If what happened in court today is any indication, the lead investigator is incompetent and prone to making things up in order to advance his case. Makes me wonder if he was the source of some of the mis-leading & inaccurate information that was initially reported in the media that had many people convinced Pistorius was guilty before the facts were even known.
And now there's this:
I don't know if Pistorius is guilty or not - but the police investigation has been dreadful and until they get their act together I don't think anyone should be prejudging him.
Was it the same seemingly incompetent detective that reported what she was wearing? If so I wouldn't be surprised to hear she was really wearing a pair of sleep shorts and sleep tank top instead of daytime clothing.
Many people on this thread are assuming Reeva locked herself in the toilet in the bathroom to get away from Pistorius however could she have been locking herself in because she heard Oscar shout out there was an intruder in the bathroom. She could have been sitting on the toilet with the door shut having a pee when she heard Oscar yelling about an intruder in the bathroom - a room she would have to go through to escape the intruder. She locks the toilet door and doesn't shout anything to Oscar as she was scared to let the intruder know she was there!! Oscar comes in and sees the door shut - maybe even hears the lock being turned. He assumes the intruder is in there and is fearful the intruder has a gun and will shoot through the door at Oscar so he shoots first - 4 shots not being that excessive in the heat of the moment.
The autopsy has already shown Reeva had an empty bladder and no other injuries on her other than the gun shots so the cricket bat does not appear to have been used on her and could have been used as Oscar says when he realised in horror he may have shoot Reeva.
There are still too many questions and the evidence is still rather piece meal at the moment as after all this is just a bail hearing - not a trial though it feels like one with the questioning of witnesses, investigators , defendant etc.
I though initailly that Pistorius had killed Reeve accidentally with the reports of an intruder, then when the police denied that info that he had killed her intentionally due to possible domestic violence issues- which have still to be proved, now I am not sure as the intruder theory has some credence and the police/prosecutors seem very quick to judge and seem to have released info that has the public and press assuming Pistorius's guilt without the full facts being released. And now it appears there have been botched investigations from the police anyways and the chief investigator has been forced to admit that he has no evidence that would exclude Oscar's story of an intruder and an accidental shooting.
I really have no idea whether he killed her accidentally or murdered her from what we have heard so far - there is going to be much more information and evidence coming out when this goes to trial and I doubt any of us can make any assumption until we hear all that.
This Botha guy, the lead detective in the case against Pistorius, comes off as shady to me.
Wash Post article:
As mentioned by WildRose above, Botha himself is facing attempted murder charges for a 2011 shooting.
The defense could argue that Botha perhaps has some sort of personal vendetta against Pistorius this time around and is saying anything he can to nail Pistorius.
Who reported that her skull was crushed? And has that now turned out to be totally bogus if she had no other injuries aside from the gunshot wounds? Or did a bullet "crush" her skull and there was simply a miscommunication between the coroner and reporters?
But aren't you contradicting yourself with these two statements - you believe that Reeva would have to turn on lights because the house is so dark, and yet you expect Pistorius to have his eyes adjusted to the dark and look for her? If your eyes are adjusted to the dark - it applies to both, if you expect that lights have to be turned on to see then again it must apply to both equally no?
In spite of the shady detective, I still don't get how you can spend a whole evening with someone, go to sleep in the same bed and the first thing you think about when you hear a noise in the adjoining bathroom (of all places) is "intruder".
But we do not live in a country where home invasion by armed intruders is a huge - and apparently frequent - problem - and Pistorius has claimed he has had death threats in the past - which is his argument as to why he had guns in bedroom in the first place!!
The more the reports come out of how badly the police have bungled this case, the more I think maybe it really -was- an accident. That was my original thought, then I changed my mind with new reports, and now my mind has been changed back again. It is just impossible to get a full picture when you aren't in the courtroom and have to rely on media.
And quite honestly, living with the knowledge that you accidentally killed your girlfriend has to be worse than being jailed for doing it on purpose. If it was an accident, I feel so badly for him.
Well I kinda hope that is true. IMO, we generally let off hot heads with guns too easily.
ETA: If a policeman acted in the same manner, shooting based on fear like that, he would be disciplined. Yet we have a lower standard of behavior for anyone else with a gun.
It doesn't sound like those two policemen who sent of 100 shots at , and hit, those newspaper delivery people in a truck in California got much more disciplining than a stern talking too. So I'm not sure this statement is true.
Does SA not have some sort of manslaughter charge? Even the premediated murder charge fails, can't he still be jailed (for a much shorter amount of time) for the killing, not to mention fined for the unlicensed gun?
I agree. For anyone who's not a psychopath (or in some cases, a career criminal), that's an awful thing to live with.
I was almost tempted to put an ROFL smiley on this, but the subject is too tragic. But seriously, police are most certainly not held to a higher standard in many countries, and often cops get away with using their firearms in reckless ways in situations in which citizens would be changed, prosecuted and possibly convicted. I'll let Radley Balko do the legwork on this one (there's plenty more here and on his old blog, The Agitator).
I agree with Desperado - even if you live in a high crime area and have had direct threats on your life, I still think one's first thought on hearing noise in the bathroom at night is that someone simply got up to pee. And even if I was thrown by a window I don't remember leaving open, I'd still verify where my spouse was before I jumped to any conclusions, and certainly before I started shooting at an unseen target.
This is what I've been thinking too - by Oscar's account, he yelled out to an intruder to get out or something like that, and then to Reeva to call the police. As I said before, I can see where she might instinctively stay quiet, lock the door if she hadn't already, and assume that anyone coming near the door was the intruder. At a moment like that, she might have been very scared, to the point of speechlessness.
Too bad one can't be charged with being stupid, because at this point, I think that's what may have happened here. Evidence of pre-meditation is thin, and even if they were having a really nasty fight, chasing her into the bathroom and shooting her dead seems like quite a stretch. I'm sure it happens, but given they had been dating only a few months and appeared happy on the outside, I'm having trouble imagining what sort of argument or situation would lead him to kill her like this. I guess it's possible that she threatened him in some way, and he waited for her to go to the bathroom at night so he could use the intruder ruse and kill her, but that seems a stretch too.
Botha replaced as lead investigator
Separate names with a comma.