Sheesh, with the comments here, there's almost no question the guy will walk.
I don't know what standard of proof is required in South Africa, but in many places, guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. At this point, there a lot we don't yet know and a police investigation that has not inspired confidence. This may change, or it may not. But just like we shouldn't rush to absolve Pistorious of blame, neither should we rush to declare him guilty of a truly sickening crime without having access to all the relevant evidence and information.
If she was purposefully going to the toilet, it is unlikely she would have more than a drop, if any, of urine on her.
Honestly I think the presence or not of pee is a red herring. I think any circumstance could point to either her voluntarily going into the toilet room, or being chased in there, whether to pee or to hide. For example, say she didn't have to pee but rather was chased to the toilet or ran there because Oscar was coming after her. What if Oscar is telling the truth, and she awoke when he got out of bed and was moving the fan, and headed to the bathroom to get a drink of water or an aspirin? Then, when she's in the bathroom, Oscar hears noises and shouts out about an intruder, so - perhaps even glancing back and seeing Oscar's silhouette and/or the open patio window - she runs into the toilet, locks the door and hides quietly, hoping to stay safe.
Same as the locked door - IMO I don't think the question of pee supports or detracts from either Oscar's or the prosecution's case.
However, his statement says he didn't realize Reeva was not in bed, so my thoughts seem not to be the case. I imagine that the whole tragedy happened so incredibly quick.
I'm honest, just not always in a nice way
Agree that when one first wakes up it sometimes takes a moment to remember where you are, what day it is etc. But in his own words, he seemed to be fully aware that she was there, and even gave thought to how an intruder could have entered the bathroom:
And, he is trying to make the case that she was in bed, but then moved to the toilet:I heard a noise in the bathroom and realized someone was in the bathroom.
I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There were no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetics legs on, I have mobility on my stumps.
I believed someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on. I grabbed my 9 mm pistol from underneath my bed.
On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
With the benefit of hindsight, I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in.
Like heckles said, however, there may be reasons for that. Or not.
They're, their, and there. Get it right your in college.
But an empty bladder could support either case, no? The defense could say that she must have gotten up while he was on the balcony and used the toilet? Or the prosecution could suggest that Reeva had got up to use the toilet, and Oscar had seized the opportunity to gun her down while she was trapped in a confined space?
And similarly, if the bladder was not empty, it still works for either side - that either she ran into the bathroom to hide from Oscar or an intruder, or that she was on her way to the toilet when Oscar shot her.
I'm not saying anyone here is right or wrong - just trying all the angles.
Still, if it happened after death, since she was clothed that night, it should be easy to find out if she emptied her bladder or if death did.
I agree with others who have pointed out the bladder issue is a moot point and can be used as a positive or negative to either side.
An empty bladder would be evidence that she had not gone to the bathroom to hide. That's why the defense would consider it an issue.
They're, their, and there. Get it right your in college.
I heard an interview with a forensic pathology expert last night, and he said that the empty bladder doesn't mean much.
You're right, I haven't seen anything that suggests that Oscar used her trip to the toilet as an opportunity to kill her; but if the defense makes a strong case that her bladder being empty means that she was not chased but rather went into the toilet room for another, innocent reason, then the prosecution will need to cast doubt on that by presenting other possible scenarios that implicate Oscar, no?
Based on whatever we know, I don’t see how they prove motive that Pistorius wanted her dead. I don’t think he wanted her dead. The most likely scenario to me is the roid rage angle, or he is another hot head with a gun. I think either case should bring with it some charge but a lesser charge than murder.
Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.
If he really did kill her deliberately, she might have threatened him in some way - knowing something he didn't want known for example. But again, they knew each other a short time, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for her to want to do that.
I don't know enough about "roid rage" but I do wonder what's inside the head of someone who is highly competitive, and whose fame might have gone to his head. We see it sometimes with politicians - it's almost like they think they are superhuman and above the moral code that the rest of us follow. And you get people like Tiger Woods, who apparently have it all and yet still do something stupid and destructive.
But then I also have trouble understanding gang members who kill each other based on something as small as a perceived insult, or because it makes them feel more powerful in some way. Oscar lives in a different culture than most of us here; maybe the value of human life is different for him, and he needs a lot less reason to kill someone than we would. After all, even if he didn't deliberately kill Reeva, he apparently had little trouble killing an intruder who had not threatened his life or hers, who was unseen, whose potential for violence was unknown, and whose motive for entering the house was also unknown to Oscar. And yet, just being in the house was by Oscar's own admission all he needed to know to shoot him.