Oscar Pistorius had testosterone & needles in his home, he says they’re ‘herbal’

Although it might not seem like it, I’ve actually been trying to avoid the more tabloid-y aspects of the Oscar Pistorius murder investigation. South African police have been leaking to both national and international media, and considering we’re getting a decent preview of the case this week with Oscar’s multi-day bail hearing, I’ve just been waiting to see what the prosecution and defense have been claiming in open court. While I have succumbed to the tabloid elements at times – the bloody cricket bat! – I really have been taking a wait-and-see approach. This is my explanation for not discussing the steroid rumors before now – because before now, they were just rumors. But the prosecution is now claiming that they found needles and “testosterone” in Oscar’s home. And the prosecution also has witnesses who are shredding Oscar’s defense.

As a bail hearing continued Wednesday in the murder case of South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, new details have emerged as prosecutors outline their charges that he is guilty of shooting his girlfriend, model Reeva Steenkamp.

Police testified that they discovered testosterone and needles inside the “Blade Runner” Olympian’s home, The New York Times reports.

But his defense lawyers said the Olympian took no banned performance-enhancing drugs, describing the substances found as herbal. The athletes, according to the International Paralympic Committee, tested drug-free as late as last September.

Pistorius, 26, has claimed the shooting was a case of mistaken identity.

Prosecution lawyers, questioning a police witness, said shots fired through the bathroom door that night countered Pistorius’s claims that he was not wearing his prosthetic legs when he thought he heard an intruder inside his house and fired with a 9 mm handgun through the door.

Steenkamp, 30, was struck three times, in the head, arm and hip. She was buried on Tuesday amid an outpouring of national support and emotional family tributes.

A police detective testified Wednesday that Pistorius had accidentally fired a weapon at a restaurant in January and urged a friend to take responsibility for the shooting, The Times reports. The detective also testified that Pistorius threatened violence over a woman in another altercation.

Pistorius had claimed to investigators that his house was dark at the time he thought an intruder was inside but a witness who testified for the prosecution Wednesday said a light was switched on when the first shots were fired.

That witness said a gunshot rang out, then a woman’s screams were heard, the more shots continued. Pistorius’s lawyer, however, said that witness, a neighbor, lived 600 yards away.

The emotional Pistorius continued to proclaim his innocence. “I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated,” Pistorius told the court in an affidavit read by his defense counsel Barry Roux. “I had no intention to kill my girlfriend.”

The prosecution, however, was resolute, that this was not an accident but a premeditated act of violence. If convicted, Pistorius would receive life in prison.

[From People]

So, here’s how the prosecution’s case stands now: Reeva arrived at Oscar’s house early in the evening (around 6 pm on the 13th) with an overnight bag. Witnesses and neighbors claim that they were fighting for hours, although the time frame seems a bit wonky (they could have been fighting early in the evening, and then much later, shortly before she was killed). Neighbors say the lights were on and that shouting immediately preceded the sound of shots being fired, and that Reeva screamed when the first shots were being fired. Oscar then (maybe) used the cricket bat to break down the door and he picked up Reeva’s body and brought it downstairs… maybe? I think the prosecution definitely needs to work on their timeline, but one thing is for sure (in my mind): Oscar’s version of events makes absolutely no sense.

Here’s more from Good Morning America – they have more details about the minutes leading up to the shots fired, and more details about the question as to whether Oscar was wearing his legs at the time of the shooting:

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

191 Responses to “Oscar Pistorius had testosterone & needles in his home, he says they’re ‘herbal’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mayday says:

    I hate to get all CSI but they are going to be able to tell whether he had his prosthetics on very quickly once they do some initial tests of how the gun was fired through the door/angle of the bullets and if that goes down badly, he’s not gonna have a leg to stand on.

    (ba dum dum chee)

    Thank you ladies and gentlemen! I’m here all week!

    Seriously tho his story is SOOOOO weak.

    • embertine says:

      Mayday, my thoughts exactly, not to mention that if he was wearing them when he fired there will be GSR trace on them as well. Perhaps we do actually watch too much CSI.

      At the risk of being ableist, “wearing his legs at the time of the shooting” is an odd sentence.

    • Tiffany says:

      On NPR this morning, they said that the prosecution had the police chief in charge of the investigation testify about that very thing. He said that the trajectory of the bullets prove that he had his legs on when he fired on the bathroom.

      • GiGi says:

        But on cross examination that same detective admitted he had no actual proof of that and that it was only an assumption.

      • bluhare says:

        AS all of us who watch NCIS, CSI, and L&O know (tongue firmly in cheek), bullet trajectory can be determined. That would be proof. If he was lower than she was they would point up. If higher, down.

      • Tiffany says:

        Keep in mind, this isn’t the full trial. This is the hearing regarding bail. The crime happened less than a week ago. The prosecution is collecting evidence and testimony from many sources. The defense is using only the testimony from one man to piece together what occurred.

        While they might not have a computer recreation of the exact angle that the bullets were fired, I would think that the initial opinion of a man who has been a police officer for 24 years and a detective for 16 might have an “assumption” worth something. I would think that he could determine with decent accuracy whether a bullet was aimed up, straight, or down.

      • Lucrezia says:

        I have major concerns about that detective:

        - the detective is facing murder charges himself (firing on passengers in a taxi)
        - detective said they found testosterone and it turns out it was actually something called “testo compositum coenzyme” (detective obviously read the first bit of the name and jumped to a conclusion)
        - detective said the witness who heard screams was 600m away (then changed his testimony to 300m)
        - detective potentially contaminated the crime scene by not wearing protective booties
        - police initially missed finding one of the bullets

        Mistakes happen, and I could excuse one or two things, but that’s a pretty damning list.

        Hopefully for the final trial there’ll be a proper ballistic report, rather than a guess from this dodgy detective. If he’s guilty, I’d hate him to get off due to shoddy police work.

    • bluhare says:

      Jack McCoy would have him for lunch!!

      Speaking of watching too many police shows.

    • Chelsea's handler says:

      “He’s not gonna have a leg to stand on’

      I agree. Once the prosecution introduce their evidence and start asking Oscar the tough questions he’s gonna be stumped.

      I betcha Trey Parker and Matt Stone have already started writing a South Park episode about this.

  2. Syko says:

    Here’s the stuff that bothers me. He was so paranoid that a burglar might be in the toilet that he shot through the door several times… yet he had no alarm system, the balcony door was wide open, and the house was not locked. WTF? If you are truly worried over an intruder, you lock the doors.

    • Elceibeno says:

      You also install bars on your windows like every other dangerous city in the world.

    • WOM says:

      YES! Exactly. It’s crazy that he’s so concerned about robbers but sleeps with the door to the balcony open. WTF?

      Also even if everything happened EXACTLY like Pistorius alleges, it’s still murder. He knowingly shot at a person with the intention of killing them.

    • bluhare says:

      Elementary, my dear Syko! Why would the burglar come in through the bathroom window (wasn’t there a song about that?) and go to the toilet with people sleeping in the next room?

    • KC says:

      He does have a security system (he’s talked about it giving him false alarms before) and according to his affidavit he was especially worried about the bathroom because its widow didn’t have security bars on it and he knew workers had left a ladder under the window.

      So it sounds like most of his windows have security bars, but again, why would someone who is paranoid let workers leave a ladder under an unsecured window and why would the balcony be left open?

  3. Lizzie says:

    Was watching on the eNCA news channel this morning, Pistorious lawyer hit back hard today trying to take down the prosecution.
    One of the junior members of the prosecutions team was heard saying “We’re in big trouble here” as they left the courtroom. Apparently the lead prosecutor shouted about the testosterone and then admitted that he never read the entire name of the substance and assumed it was illegal.
    It’s a strange to think all of this is just over bail.
    Imagine the actual trial! Which is even more interesting when you think that SA doesn’t use juries in cases.

    • mia girl says:

      And their witness lives 600 yards away?
      That’s 6 football fields… Can that be true?
      I hope this prosecution doesn’t blow it (remember OJ) and that they’ve handled the crime scene and autopsy (RIP Reeva) properly.
      Pistorius’ lawyers aren’t going to miss a thing.

      • Lizzie says:

        The “witness” told the prosecution that they heard Pistorious and his girlfriend arguing for about an hour in the morning on the day of the shooting.
        I guess the specific forensics of the case hasn’t been released yet so we won’t know for sure if the prosecution only has circumstantial evidence against him (in terms of their pre-meditated murder claims)

      • Naye in VA says:

        Right. I was with the prosecution until i heard the 600 yards away. How do you hear someone arguing inside 600 yards away? I also wonder just how quickly someone can get to a window in the middle of the night to know when a light came on (assuming the shots were successive). He still sounds very guilty but the reaching is very reminiscent of OJ.

      • Tiffany says:

        According to NPR, the defense said the witness lived 300 yards away, not 600 yards away.

        Still a long way, but half the distance that was mentioned above.

      • kayla says:

        The CNN report I read this morning said the defense forensics team found a bullet in the toilet that police had missed and that investigators went into Pistorius’ home without wearing protective foot covers to prevent contaminating the crime scene. So there goes botching the scene :( I’m sure that’ll play out well.

      • Tiffany says:

        I just read the Guardian article, and here is what I can tell about the distance issue.

        1.) It was 600m, not 300 yards as NPR wrote.

        2.) Many people are saying 600 YARDS, it was “600-odd meters”. Yards and meters are close, but not the same thing.

      • Tiffany says:

        The details are so hard to keep straight.

        The police officer later changed his estimate of the neighbor, from being 600m away to 300m away.

    • Tiffany says:

      According to NPR, the neighbor heard a gun shot, two or three female screams, and then more gunshots.

      Also, the place where he kept his gun was on the side of the bed where she had been sleeping. Meaning, it is hard to believe that he went for his gun and didn’t realize that she wasn’t in bed.

    • Ok says:

      Sure. That’s not a planted story by the defense at all. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer “would not have read a label all the way”. I would think that a lawyer would not be an expert in substances and they would consult someone in a medical office for that evaluation.

      Lizzie – Oscar -baby can afford excellent lawyers. And his excellent lawyers are going to play everything out in the media. Anticipate a ton of planted stories favoring Oscar-baby.

      I know that is what I would do if I were his lawyer.

  4. Micki says:

    …”describing the substances found as herbal”

    Morfine is herbal too, and that makes the heroin, which uses it as basic ingredient semi-herbal. Good to know I guess.

    I just wonder how ridiculous this story is to become with such a load of inconsistencies on his part.

  5. LadyMTL says:

    I saw a bit about this on the news last night and was flabbergasted by how stupid his excuse is. I mean, he assumed that his girlfriend was still in bed with him but didn’t bother to check? How hard is it to reach over and feel around for them? And that’s if the lights really were off.

    Secondly, who on earth just opens fire? Say I give him a massive benefit of the doubt and believe his story that he thought it was a burglar, he still shot a person! He reached under his bed, grabbed a gun and fired four freaking shots. Isn’t that at the very least criminal negligence?

    Anyway, this entire crime makes me feel so bad for Reeva…no one should have to die like that.

  6. T.C. says:

    Whether he was wearing his legs or not is just a distraction offered by the defense to keep reminding everyone of his ‘poor me I’m disabled remember”. This half baked intruder story is full of holes. Of course she screamed after the first shot and he just kept going pumping more bullets into her body.

    • TQB says:

      Agree – we’re supposed to see him as helpless, alone in his bed, fearing an intruder, and thus justified in his complete over-reaction. Except, of course, if he knew he was alone in bed, it’s obvious who was in the bathroom. Can’t have it both ways, guy.

    • Belle says:

      Isn’t the prosecution claiming that he did take the time to put his prosthetic legs on… suggesting it is one of the elements that support premeditation?

      I don’t doubt that the defense will play any card they can, including the sympathy for a disability card… but whether or not he put his prosthetics on seems to be a part of the prosecutions case. I don’t know, maybe it is a twofer deal. They address the disability right out of the gate, maybe minimizing the sympathy the defense will hope to gain, while also making it a part of their case, and having the prosthetic legs viewed as evidence instead of something that makes Oscar look like a victim.

  7. marie says:

    his story just doesn’t jive, he’s a violent POS that needs to rot in a jail cell.

  8. shewolf says:

    Trial by media.

    I don’t care which way the verdict ends up by for the love of God stick to the facts.

    If anyone is interested in the entire story read the court transcripts here.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2013/feb/20/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-day-two-live-coverage

    • shewolf says:

      The prosecution even admitted they “didnt read the whole word” when claiming testosterone was found. So even the prosecution knows they made a mistake with this claim!

      • Squiz says:

        Yep, my bad, it didn’t say neighbour!

        But still don’t think it was a bad day for the prosecution at all. You have to remember that most of the stuff rebutted were only the policeman’s opinions which is not going to be relied upon in a trial. Ballistics (which has not yet submitted their findings) will show exactly where Pistorius stood and whether he was wearing his prothetics or not. Also the actual witness will give evidence rather than just the policeman’s statement taken from the witness. Also they will get the phone listings of the missing phone (which he only knew of the night before) that Pistorius did not disclose.

        Reeva was also dressed! Which is key to the prosecution (as stated in the opening statement) and quitely not mentioned by the defence

        Ha! this should appear down under my other comment, sorry, I’m a newbie :)

      • shewolf says:

        Squiz… she was dressed? As in clothing to go out in public? Where did you read this, Im so curious now because this is the first piece of evidence that could actually discredit his story.

      • Squiz says:

        @shewolf – Hopefully this will land in the right place lol

        The prosecutor in his opening statement said that “Steenkamp was dressed when she was shot” Later on they said she was wearing white shorts and a black vest. It was mentioned about her being “dressed” 3 times today. The defence just swept it under the carpet

        Remember it is summer in SA so wearing shorts would not be out of place

      • Debra says:

        just because he said she was ‘dressed’ in shorts and a vest doesn’t mean she was dressed to go out… in SA a vest is a tank-top and shorts could either be regular shorts or underwear

      • Squiz says:

        @Debra The prosecution was making a point that it was deliberate “because” she was dressed.

        This is his opening statement to the court:

        “Nel says the state (the prosecution) will indicate the deliberate firing of shots.

        The prosecution is in possession of a statement indicating there was an argument, Nel says.

        He says he will submit a witness statement to the effect that a woman heard non-stop fighting between 2am and 3am on the morning of Reeva Steenkamp’s death.

        Steenkamp was dressed when she was shot, he says.

        Nel says the accused’s actions and phone calls on the night indicate pre-planning. He says there was a “deliberate aiming of shots at the toilet from about 1.5m”. He says Steenkamp was shot on the right side of her body and this is part of the state’s case that this was premeditated murder.”

        If they meant she just had underwear on, it wouldn’t be mentioned in the opening statement. And underwear does not mean “dressed”

      • shewolf says:

        Squiz… the set up of these comments and replies confuses the life out of me too! Thanks for the info about her clothing I must have missed it while reading the transcripts because I was reading it in pieces while getting breakfast for my daughters this morning.

        The fact that she was dressed is the only thing SO FAR that may lead me to believe that he killed Reeva (RIP) maliciously. But like others have said wearing shorts and a tank in bed isnt abnormal. Again it looks like things could be interpreted either way. This case is nuts!

      • Squiz says:

        This is stated in the South African Newspaper “Mail & Guardian”

        “The shots went through her clothes, showing she was dressed when she was shot.”

        They do not think she was in her underwear but clothed

    • GiGi says:

      Thanks so much for this – I read it this am and found it very interesting. This defense lawyer must be very good – he really shredded the prosecution’s case. And why do the detectives always manage to botch things in these really serious cases?

      The US media is portraying this as a good day for the prosecution while the rest of the world has it for the defense. Curiouser and curiouser.

    • Anmelt says:

      So true. I was convinced he did it but now mmm…The media and the leaks have been very irresponsible. After reading the transcripts from today I am not so sure anymore because to me the prosecution and the police witness did not do so well.

      Lets just wait until more solid evidence comes out before we judge.

    • Liv says:

      I find it very alarming that many people think he killed her on purpose. Conviction much?

      Maybe he killed her on purpose, but it’s still possible that it was an accident. Plus isn’t it weird that the police is telling so many “facts” to the media??

    • Tiffany says:

      From reading that, it looks like there were TWO witnesses that heard a woman screaming.

  9. lady X says:

    Common sense is PRICELESS … Things are usually what you think they are …
    As much as I did not want to believe O.J Simpson did it as I am a black woman and know how L.A.P.D can here … my common sense always prevails
    As it did with Casey Anthony … Scott Peterson … Jodi Arias and who ever else kills and then comes up with some B.S lie cover up
    Of course he is going to lie … Who wants to go from being a hero in your own country to rotting in a S.A prison …
    I do not care how you look at this or how different his culture is or how much crime is in his neighborhood…
    No Real man is his right mind is going to have his woman laying next to him .. hear a noise and not wake her up or protect her first… NO WOMAN is going to lock the bathroom door at her man’s house … (eventually that weird moment is going to happen) ..
    and in no way are you going to be in the house with someone and start shooting because you heard a strange noise … You call out wait for an answer than you go look…
    Please I know we as Americans believe in reasonable doubt and due process but that is bullshit and it never works …
    The US says ” We would rather 1,00 guilty walk.. then 1 innocent person go to jail” Yet is works the other way around
    Use common sense … do not allow the defense to cloud your judgement with B.S that is irrelevant to what happen here….
    He killed her in a fit of rage due to being on steroids and now is lying to save his own ass … ANYONE would LIE if they were facing murder charges

    • Patricia says:

      Agreed.
      It is horrible to comprehend, but it just does NOT sound like an accident. He is lying. Period. I hope he gets life.
      It breaks my heart to think she went there, for V day, trusting him, having no idea she would leave in a body bag. Poor girl.
      Violence against women is completely unforgivable. Sadly our society has high tolerance for it, so it continues. Nauseating.

    • Lucrezia says:

      You might be right for 99% of that, but you’re wrong about the door locking thing. I always lock the toilet door, regardless of where I am (even alone in my own apartment).

      Based on comments in the last thread, I’m not the only auto-doorlocker. It’s just habit. If you grew up locking the door it just becomes ingrained. (In my case, the toilet door in my childhood home was like the doors on public toilets … it’d swing wide open unless you latched it shut.)

  10. GoodCapon says:

    I hate to stick my neck out, but is it safe to say that alcohol was not involved as it was never brought up in this case?

    And I thought Reeva was cremated, not buried. RIP.

  11. Little Darling says:

    Rage is rage is rage. Murder is murder. A beautiful woman on the inside is lost from the world. Whether it was steroids or just plain old jealousy and anger, he terrorized that poor woman to her death. Period.

  12. Squiz says:

    It was also said she was dressed when she was shot in shorts and a vest. He reached for the gun which was suppose to be directly underneath where she was sleeping (but he didn’t notice she wasn’t there?) He also didn’t phone for emergency services from either of the 2 cell phones that were on the bathroom floor at the time

  13. L says:

    At first I thought the steroids were so he could argue a ‘roid rage’ defense.

    Until someone pointed out to me that his sworn bail affidavit is considered legal testimony in SA. Where he fully admits to knowing he was shooting someone. So unless he admits to committing perjury or that his lawyer made up the whole statement (since he didn’t read it himself) at least he can’t pull that rabbit out of the hat.

    His story just proves to be more ridiculous and full of holes every day. And his family is no better with their statements. Disgusting the lot of them

  14. LeeLoo says:

    I have a real problem with these murder stories in the media. I hate it when crime gets glorified like it always does with the OJ Simpsons, Casey Anthonys and Oscar Pistoriouses of the world. However, I’m reading and commenting here so I can’t bitch too much. The media can never be trusted in cases like this but I do believe in the basic idea behind this: dude straight up murdered his girlfriend.

    I do think Pistrious is a sociopath who thought he could get away with murder. He may have gotten his family to believe his stupid story but I think anyone with half a brain realizes he murdered his girlfriend in cold blood. Maybe it was impulsive, maybe he did it spur of the moment but I’m not thinking so. Having dated a man I believe to be a narcissist with elements of sociopathy makes me a bit more sensitive to these types of stories. These South African police aren’t stupid, they seem to have their ducks in a row despite all the media blabbing. It will be interesting to see the court systems in SA and how they work.

    I hope that the testosterone found is considered a PED and he gets his medals stripped. I almost have more of an issue with the cheating than him brutally murdering his girlfriend. In reality, I hope he is punished for both crimes.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      do you have a degree in psychology or or you a psychiatrist that you feel you can make an armchair diagnosis of appearance for this man? Or have you treated him?

      • HK9 says:

        Are you serious????? WTF. We’re talking about a man who didn’t have an alarm, didn’t lock his door, but took the time to shoot through his bathroom door for an “intruder”, (you know that new species of burgler that locks themselves in the bathroom after forgetting to steal anything) before calling out for his girlfriend who he knew was in the house. And you think LeeLoo is being presumptuous????? Someone on this thread said that common sense is priceless~ I think you need to get yourself some.

      • LeeLoo says:

        @Paranormalgirl What the hell are you doing on a gossip site’s comment board if you don’t want people jumping to conclusions? Actually, my BA minor was in psychology so bite me.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        Actually, LeeLou, I’m a psychiatrist (with an MD and everything) and I am sick and tired of seeing people “diagnosing” others. Not all murderers are sociopaths. Some are just assholes. Pistorius may very well be sociopathic, but at this time, nothing in his history shows that. He is, however, a giant asshole. “Bite me”? Really?

        I am on this site (and have been for quite some time) because I WANT to be. I actually agree with you, LeeLou, in the vast majority of your assessment of the case. You have made salient strong points. I think this man is as guilty as sin in this incident. I think he coldly, calculatedly , and viciously murdered his girlfriend. I have no problem jumping to that conclusion. The problem I DO have is jumping to the conclusion that he has a mental illness because he murdered someone. Let’s not give him that “excuse” at this point in time. To me, even saying he’s sociopathic is a reason and explanation for this crime and I don’t even want to give him that.

      • vvvoid says:

        Guess what Paranormalgirl, I do have a degree in psychology, and my focus is not just any form of psychology: forensic psychology.
        It’s perfectly apparent that Oscar may indeed be a narcissist. It’s also reasonable to conclude that he’s a sociopath, given the evidence available thus far. He reminds me of Lance Armstrong. He buys into his own hype and thinks he can put together a nonsensical defense and get away with this based on his public persona. He felt untouchable enough to gun down an innocent woman cowering in the toilet and reasoned people would buy his intruder theory because, surely, he is so beloved NO ONE would believe he was a cold-blooded murderer. He’s even taking advantage of SA’s racial stigma. There is a lot of crime there [subtext: "THANKS TO THE BLACKS"] so of course people will excuse his paranoia. It’s not his fault certain people [read: "the blacks"] are so crime prone that he has to be armed to the teeth and paranoid for his personal safety.
        This is opportunistic. I’m not calling him a racist or claiming this is a racial issue, but if you read the comments in SA articles, there is a very real racial stigma and my hunch is he is knowingly exploiting this. Because I believe he killed that sweet woman intentionally.
        It’s sad to think about the PTSD she must have had from an abusive relationship prior to this one. When he started to go off on her, it was probably her nightmare come true. So sad.

      • em(original) says:

        Paranormal,what kind of quack psychiatry is this? Sociopathy is not an “excuse” for murder. Cold-blooded murders are antisocial by definition. You’re okay with concluding that he killed her in cold blood, but you take issue with equating that with Sociopathy. Stop spreading bullshit please, and take a refresher course on the DSM.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        Antisocial and sociopathic are not the same thing. It would be incredibly unethical of me or any mental health professional to diagnose someone without treating them. I’m not “spreading bullshit.” I have no need to refresh myself on anything at the moment. Do I “think” he might display sociopathic traits? Possibly. Do I know for certain, not having met him, not having anything to go by other than what is available? No. However, if someone who has treated him or interviewed him in a forensic environment states that he displays sociopathy, I would not be surprised in the least bit.

      • BestJes says:

        As a psychiatrist shouldn’t you be aware that sociopathy is NOT a mental illness?

      • paranormalgirl says:

        Sociopathy is a personality disorder, so technically it is a mental disorder. Mental disorders can still be linked with mental illnesses (it can be a hop, skip, and a jump for someone with a PD to claim schizophrenia or dissociative disorder in order to go for an unfit to plead, not that there would be much chance of that, but it can and has happened.) I was also speaking in general terms. Once again, I never said that he WASN’T sociopathic or narcissistic. I said it would be unethical to actual diagnose someone without having interviewed him.

      • minime says:

        Thank you Paranormalgirl to state what should be more obvious for people who claim to have the expertise to make such assumptions. So many here clamming that they are experts and it seems like you all jumped the first classes where they teach you that you can never diagnose a person by a story or even a first meeting. You can give your opinion based in your knowledge, but if you are a professional you should be the first one to acknowledge that it is nothing but an opinion.
        People that jump into serious diagnoses with such levity and use of their supposed education to justify it give a bad name to our field.

      • vvvoid says:

        @Paranormal

        I don’t see the point in tearing into someone for speculating that a celebrity and apparent callous murderer is narcissistic and/or sociopathic.
        She wasn’t putting it in his file for god’s sake, she was speculating, and she wasn’t speculating wildly.
        Forensic psychologists, we don’t always get to “diagnose in a clinical setting”. We look at patterns from afar, often times without even knowing the identity of a suspect, and make our best guess as to their mental state based on their crimes and patterns. Profiling. And in my experience it’s quite effective. There is controversy surrounding the “art” of profiling, for sure, but it’s a useful investigative tool.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        vvvoid, you’re right. I’ve worded things poorly and we all jump to speculation regarding possible clinical diagnoses when some things happen (myself included, though it’s usually only in my own head). In forensics, though, we usually have a ton of procedural and evidential information to use when making a possible diagnosis/commentary on someone involved in a crime. I’m working with someone who was given a “diagnosis” by an applied behavioral specialist (MA in psychology) and she is the kind of person who ran with it, developing a somatic version of bipolar disorder. So I am a bit sensitive about these labels being thrown out at the moment.

        As for profiling, I believe it is a useful and effective tool and I firmly believe that some people have a gift for it (I wanted to do forensic psychiatry, but I really have difficulty with crime scenes and crime scene photos.) But again, you’re using more than court reports and media reports to create the profile. You’re using crime scene analysis and patterns of behavior to get the profile. One of the things I learned in my forensics rotation is that it’s nearly impossible to build a profile based on one murder.

    • Cookingpan says:

      Unfortunately your statement about the competence of the South African police is woefully misinformed. There are cases upon cases lost purely on their incompetence. They are renowned for bungling forensic evidence, contaminating crime scenes and randomly allowing witnesses and suspects alike to roam free. Why do you think they’re asking for no bail? They are so jittery after their last fiasco – they have enough egg on their face for a large village fritata! My poor beloved country!

    • vvvoid says:

      @Paranormalgirl

      I see where you’re coming from. I agree it’s bad practice to try and diagnose someone based on media reports alone, lol.
      I also think when it comes to domestic violence murders, a lot is different. These are crimes of passion. I do believe the men most prone to them are men with Axis 1 or 2 issues. I would say NPD, BPD, APD, and Bipolar or clinical depression account for a great deal of domestic violence incidents.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        I think the worst abuse cases are attributed to APD, or were, from a study I vaguely remember.

      • vvvoid says:

        @paranormalgirl

        Certainly. With APD comes a profound and consistent inability to empathize with the pain being inflicted, and often correlates with sadism.
        I don’t believe Oscar displays traits that I know of that would put him in the APD category, but NPD possibly, BPD possibly [if he felt after the possible argument Reeva was going to leave him, or if he felt betrayed by something on her phone he may have found, and also because he may have been both psychologically and physiologically incapable of regulating his emotional reaction to the incident due to an undersized prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus as some studies suggest is the case with BPD.
        That's if he's guilty, which I believe he is based on his version of events making no sense [unless he has profound PTSD,in that case I could see how he'd behave so illogically].

        I also agree that personality disorders are mental illnesses. I think a lot of people like to say otherwise in order to hold people more accountable. I have BPD and it’s definitely a mental illness in my book.

  15. Annie says:

    The substance is a form of testosterone that can be injected, and it also comes in the form of pills. It’s legal, you can find it in pharmacies and it’s not banned for athletes. I know body builders and runners (female!) who use it. The media loved implying/saying it was steroids. This guy had competitions in the coming weeks. Why would he dope now?

    Can I say how disgusted I am with the media right now? Their treatment of this case is unethical and gross. First, putting the poor girl on a bikini in their covers and the BLADE GUNNER SHOOTS LOVER!! Yellow journalism at best. Focusing on how she was a model, barely mentioning her accomplishments, focusing more on Oscar’s.

    Second, all the LIES. Blatant lies. Her skull was not crushed, and there was no evidence of battery whatsoever. Why would they print that? It’s not even true that the police had come to his place hours before the shooting because they had been fighting and it’s not true they had visited his home for domestic disturbance the days before either! The only incident was in 2009, a case we all knew about, when some girl was harassing his then gf and he threw her out of his house (his right) and she claimed assault. Police dropped the case because not even they believed her but he is suing her for making up those claims and getting him arrested.

    No history of assault or abuse that we know of. An ex has come forward saying he dated him for 5 years and he was never violent or threatning. But no mention of that in the papers! That doesn’t sell!

    I believe this: Oscar is a paranoid and a very irresponsible gun owner who should go to jail for that. But not even the police found inconsistencies with his story. Reeva was indeed using the bathroom. Her bladder was empty.

    The media is making him out to be an angry successful man that abused his woman until one day he just snapped and killed her all to get hits and money because the truth is less exciting. See the way they write their headlines, and then you read the actual story and it’s not quite the same.

    Also, the neighbors who heard the screams and arguments live 600ms away. That’s all the news outlets are hanging on to, but how much can we trust the claims of people that live almost a kilometer away?

    All I’m going to say is this, if you’re interested in this case, follow the court info and NOTHING from the media. The things that made me not believe him: the skull crushed, the police coming over that night before the shooting, the arguments, the steroids, were all wrong.

    I think he deserves his day in court. And I think we should wait for more information to come out. All the things that disgusted me were not even true and that is not fair. The media and the public are not the ones who should judge and sentence, so I’m done judging him too. I followed the guy who wrote the first story on Twitter, on how she had her skull crushed and people are confronting him and he’s all chill and not replying. Like, that is irresponsible journalism mam. If that was true it would’ve been used as an argument of how this was premeditated.

    The media is disgusting.

    • shewolf says:

      Girl, I am with you all the way.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      …but he DID shoot her three times through a closed bathroom door right? He killed her and he’s not denying that.

      In regards to public perception, I think the other details you mentioned are bordering on irrelevant in light of the aforementioned FACT. He killed an innocent woman, who did nothing except for fall in love with the wrong guy.

      “Reeva was indeed using the bathroom. Her bladder was empty.”

      …and you’re using this as a defense of…what exactly? She was using the bathroom so he had every right to shoot her three times? Again, none of these details change the fact that he murdered her and now a family is left without their daughter. I don’t care how much you hero-worship this guy-he’s still a murderer at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it or try to justify his actions.

      • Ajla R says:

        Regarding the bladder comment (since I’ve been following the live streaming today).. No, that doesn’t make him less of a murderer.. But according to Oscar, he was on the balcony when he heard someone in the bathroom – supposedly was Reeva who went to the bathroom to empty her bladder. Had they been in a fight, as everyone else claims, and she went to the bathroom to hide from Oscar and not to pee, her bladder would not have been empty at 3 am.

        That’s what they said today..

        And Annie, I agree. I don’t “hero-worship” Oscar, he killed his girlfriend.. But the media creates several version of this story and half of them are as stupid as Oscar’s.

      • Annie says:

        I’m saying that Reeva was using the bathroom. She was not hiding in fear because he was chasing her with a gun, like everyone claimed. She was peeing FFS. Bladder completely empty. I mean, please. “Hey, my crazy boyfriend is chasing me with a gun! he has no legs on, so let me give him time to catch me by locking myself up in a room with no exit right across where he is, eventhough my car is parked right outside and I have time to leave because he’s putting his legs on, which takes time by the way! While I’m here, I should just tinkle.” Does that make sense? Who does that?

        It does look like he woke up and freaked out in his sleep. Still very awful, but definitely not the story you are being sold.

        Of course he killed her. Of course he shot three times. But he shot at the door. He was irresponsible and insanely stupid. And he will be convicted for that. But this does not prove that he wanted to kill his girlfriend and planned it. Or that he had been threatning and abusing her hours before. The police were never called before the shooting. Not during the night, not the weeks before. There are no signs of battery on her body. Her skull was not crushed. People who claim to hear things live too far away to be reliable. They were not even next door neighbors.

        Let’s just stay objective. The fact that the police found no inconsistencies in his story and how the most incriminating allegations were lies printed by the media should at least give this man the benefit of the doubt.

        The situation is already bad as it is. The media is being absolutey disgusting with their rage inducing headlines and their incorrect information and the exploitation of the victim. No dignity and respect for the deceased, whatsoever. No respect for court proceedings either.

        The media is disgusting. They love to build people up, but they enjoy nothing more than to tear them down.

        The facts will come out during the trial. So far the police has spoken. It’s just not ok the way things are being spinned for hits and money. “SKULL BROKEN, LOUD ARGUMENTS, DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE COMPLAINTS ALL WEEK, STEROIDS AND NEEDLES! LOOK AT HOW HOT SHE WAS. DISABLED MAD GENIUS KILLS LOVER!”

        It’s gross.

        I know I’ll definitely wait ’til more info comes out but I will not judge this guy anymore. If other people have made up their minds based on incorrect information, that is their problem. But this is a disgusting circus and I don’t want to be part of the angry irrational mob.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Ok, don’t judge him, but don’t tell me or anyone else here that we shouldn’t.

        I’m not serving on a jury nor am I a judge so I have every right to criticize a murderer for what he did, which is take the life of an innocent woman. Even if he’s claiming that he was “shooting at the door” (you SERIOUSLY believe that??), what moron doesn’t understand that shooting a gun towards someone who is behind a closed door can result in the death of that person?
        What you want to pass of as a “careless mistake” doesn’t change the fact that a life was taken for NO REASON. Stupidity is NOT a viable defense, no matter how much you try to push it, nor is it a reason to justify murder. For the record, I find it really hard to believe that someone who so readily uses a gun to intimidate his girlfriend has never had any history of verbal or physical abuse towards women.

        In the end, a judge will decide. If he gets away with murder, then he’ll be another OJ Simpson with a tarnished reputation, which frankly, isn’t much of a punishment for extinguishing a human life, when you think about it.

        As far as her bladder being empty, she probably pissed her pants in fear. Certainly her bladder being empty isn’t the only proof that the defense has for her being in the bathroom? She could have gone to the bathroom 20 minutes before that or maybe she just didn’t have to pee at all? How exactly does that prove that she wasn’t hiding in the bathroom out of fear?

        Personally, I hope he goes to jail. If it was my mother or sister he killed, I would want justice.

      • stinky says:

        uh. what if she peed 15, 30, or 90 minutes before being chased back into the bathroom by her murderer.
        the empty bladder defence is no better than the rest

      • L says:

        In regards to the bladder, testimony today was that based on the floor plan, that she wasn’t on the toilet based on the angles of the shots. (the toilet was on the back wall, all of the entry points were on her right side)

        Testimony from prosecutors that she had gone to the bathroom hours before, and was cowering for her life in the bathroom during the time of the shooting. Which is terrifying to think of.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2013/feb/20/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-day-two-live-coverage

      • Tiffany says:

        “I’m saying that Reeva was using the bathroom.”

        That is an assumption. She might have urinated at some point during the hour leading up to the shooting. It doesn’t mean that she was shot while peeing.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        It says a LOT when the people defending Pistorious are clinging to the fact that Reeva had an empty bladder. Truthfully, it says that they really don’t have much of a defense.

        Repeating over and over again that the police weren’t called to the house before for domestic violence does nothing to show that Pistorious has not been guilty of domestic abuse in the past. Victims of domestic abuse are often too fearful to speak out, particularly when they are dealing with an abuser who is high-profile, famous, and powerful.

        The facts ARE speaking for themselves-loud and fucking clear.

      • skuddles says:

        OKitten… I agree 1000 %!

      • bluhare says:

        I wonder why, given the fact the bathroom door was locked and phones found on the bathroom floor, Oscar didn’t yell that he had the person covered and was calling the police? The door was locked and he had a gun. Advantage: Oscar.

      • vvvoid says:

        @Annie…

        The holster was found on her side of the bed. He probably grabbed the gun after she fled to the bathroom, to “get her” since she locked the door.
        She probably didn’t know he would go to such an extreme. Thus, the bathroom seemed a relatively safe place. Also she probably wasn’t thinking rationally. The cops say the bullets in the door match her injuries.
        If indeed he did begin firing before she fled, her locking herself in the bathroom for safety still isn’t outside the realm of possibility. Oscar said the bathroom window was open. Perhaps she thought she could fit through it if she needed to escape.
        She may have also thought she could take cover in the bath tub to avoid the bullets if he began firing through the door.
        Also, with all the adrenaline rushing through her, it’s not unusual that she might not have been thinking straight. I would have ran out of the house, but she may have felt nothing would stop him from firing on her as she ran through the neighborhood.

        Victims don’t always make rational survival decisions in the heat of the moment. Many victims run upstairs when assailed by intruders, even though it limits their options for escape.

        Bottom line: it makes more sense that she’d hide in a bathroom than do his claims that he fired wildly into a bathroom “not realizing” Reeva was the one inside of it, especially after tossing his holster on Reeva’s empty side of the bed. The idea that he wouldn’t have shouted at the “intruder” through the bathroom door, and that Reeva wouldn’t have responded at all and let him know it was she who was in there, also doesn’t hold water.

        Oscar’s version of events is DOA.

    • Auruor says:

      Minor quibble here from a former journalist — “the media” is not one homogeneous blob. It is composed of COUNTLESS individual people, outlets, and varying types of offerings. Skeevy tabloid media are putting bikini pictures on the covers of their newspapers. Not all “media.”

      This is an extremely newsworthy story. Of course it’s going to garner worldwide media attention. But your problem is with the scraping-the-bottom of the barrel cockroaches, not with “the media.”

      Also, if you intend to follow “the court info and NOTHING from the media,” you’ll be SOL unless you’re the judge or a prosecutor. The responsible media who are just doing their job will be the place you will go for the “court info.” Most of our knowledge of the rest of the world is mediated. This is an unavoidable fact. All media aren’t the problem here.

      …and in case it needs mentioning, you’re commenting on a media site, and presumably everything you’re arguing about the “truth” of what happened you learned through media as well. Unless you were there.

      • shewolf says:

        Good points! But I think her point was that if you read the court transcripts and you read everything else… there is a huge contrast and some major major major discrepancies. The people writing and publishing the vast majority of the information out there are not adhering to principle of presenting unbiased information.

      • Auruor says:

        Well, FWIW, it’s important to remember that the journalistic “principle of presenting unbiased information” is really only an American tradition (and a relatively new one). Most of the world’s media don’t adhere to an unbiased hard-news approach.

      • Annie says:

        Exactly, Shewolf. There are huge discrepancies here and the fact that they are being sold to enterain people as if this was some show it’s just wrong. A woman lost her life. Look how they’re treating her. Putting her bikini pictures on front pages so they sell more. People focusing on what a loss that was just because she was gorgeous, not because she was a person. “MODEL GIRLFRIEND.”

        Also, they bring up old abuse allegations but they don’t explain everything: that it was a girl who started arguments with his gf, he kicked her out of the house and she claimed he assaulted her. Police found nothing and dropped the case. So now she’s being sued for wrongful arrest. But oh no, that is not consistent with the ragey abusive Patrick Bateman picture we’re painting here, so let’s just imply things.
        They were purposely vague too: “he’s been accused of assault by previous gfs before and there were incidentS of domestic abuse reported at his house”. That is not true. It was only one incident that one time and she was not a gf. And it’s domestic abuse when you hurt your partner. But police dropped the case for a reason.

        The media is supposed to be unbiased and be responsible with the truth and not guide people through unsubtanciated claims to sell copies. What angers me so much is how they claimed he crushed her head before shooting her once in his bedroom, then finishing her off in the bathroom. They said this came from autopsy reports. Not true. How can you print that and not feel just a little bad?

        Like, Chist, the case is bad enough as it is. You don’t need to paint some story out of The Shining.

      • LeenB says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the bladder empty anyway when you die? So it doesn’t matter if the whole bladder was empty in that case.

    • Annie says:

      PS – I do say the media as if they’re one entity because everybody printed the same claims that City Press printed first: that her skull was crushed according to the autopsy. That is a blatant lie that everyone reprinted without bothering to check its veracity first. “Bat covered in blood, her skull received blows. Her skull was crushed, the autopsy reveals.” Guess what, it’s not true. But how many people bought their paper based on that and how many people think that happened? You ask the dude who wrote the article about this claim and he’s all “yes, a bat was found in the crime scene.” To knock the door down, which again, the police confirmed. He says nothing like “The autopsy revealed…” He knows it’s not true.

      Second, you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand and follow the case in court. You don’t need the media to translate things for you, if you do, you are letting the media manipulate your brain instead if thinking for yourself, nit in this case but in every story. You just need to listen to what the defense, prosecution and witness had to say and so far it has been pretty clear.

      All I’m saying is – don’t believe everything you read. As crazy as he sounds, it does not appear (yet) that he’s lying. I did not believe a word he said thanks to the things that have turned out to be not true, so I’m just sitting back and waiting for more info.

      But the press is sick. It’s all about who prints exclusives first, not bothering to check their accuracy. And people just go with it. Scary.

      • Auruor says:

        …and how do you know that the first wave of stories was wrong? Because you were there? Presumably you gathered some new information that convinced you otherwise. From media of some kind.

        It doesn’t appear that you read anything that I wrote. Believe whatever you want. I’m not interested in arguing with you.

        The press is out to get you. The media are all one undifferentiated blob that are actively conspiring to spread lies. It’s all a conspiracy.

        There you go.

      • shewolf says:

        I’m still with Annie on this. Aururor have you read the court transcripts? If you compare them to any other form of information about this case out there the discrepancies are shockingly alarming. It seriously blew my mind. I am kind of pissed off and aggravated that I can’t get accurate and unbiased information. I am just so glad that this trial is public and responsible media outlets are providing us with accurate information. If this case was up to the public he’d have been hung by mass hysteria alone.

      • Auruor says:

        shewolf, I agree — mass hysteria can be a dangerous thing, and some media are only exacerbating it. (See e.g. the Duke lacrosse scandal…)

        But to paint ALL MEDIA with one brush and say they’re ALL “sick,” they’re all lying, they’re all sensationalist… I have no patience for that. There are good, responsible media practitioners/outlets who are working hard to just find the truth. Perhaps I have a chip on my shoulder because I worked as a journalist, but I really tire of people maligning journalism as a whole.

      • shewolf says:

        Aururour… I cant remember how to spell your screen name for the life of me sorry! But what you say is true, I can’t deny that. If I was a journalist and I worked hard to present the truth I’d be pretty peeved about being lumped in with junk journalists. The fact that I am getting my information from a media source and not the lawyers themselves proves your point quite nicely!

      • bluhare says:

        I read the autopsy showed a fractured skull along with the gunshot wounds. That’s a bit different from “crushed”.

      • bluhare says:

        Annie: You make assumptions yet tell everyone else not to.

        Example: You indicate she MUST have been in the bathroom peeing. Apparently, you’ve got ESP because unless you were there you’ve got no flipping idea, just like the rest of us.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Exactly, bluhare.

        Annie-you keep complaining about lack of objectivity but even the most objective person in the world would agree that Pistorious’s story is not adding up.

        I would respect your opinion a lot more if you just stated that you’re a fan of Pistorious and as such, you are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and that you will leave it up to a judge to decide.

        Instead you’re on this thread making it seem like any of us who think he’s guilty are just mindless sheep who believe anything the media spoon-feeds us.

        Most of us are intelligent, critical thinkers who assessed and interpreted the FACTS and simply think that the man is guilty.
        Of course you have a right to disagree with us, but I take issue with what I perceive to be a very pious tone to your comments.

      • Eva, uk says:

        Totally agree kitten, well said.

    • Masque says:

      I hate to be gross but in times of extreme fear people often lose control of their bladders. An empty bladder doesn’t necessarily mean she went to the bathroom to relieve herself.

    • Maria Von Trapp says:

      Yes! Agree totally. So many lies presented as fact by stupid media.

  16. lucy2 says:

    Based on what we’ve heard so far, nothing in his story makes any sense.
    Not sure why steroids would be all that relevant, I’m thinking the actual forensics are going to tell the real story here.

  17. aud says:

    his story makes no sense, unfortunately.

    he supposedly got up and brought a fan inside, without his legs? that sounds absurd, why would he do that? it sounds very difficult

    he also supposedly yelled to her to call cops on an intruder….at which point she apparently stayed silent? uh no, if he yelled that to her she would call back to him from the toilet. and he wouldn’t shoot.

    imo, they fought. she decided to leave. he didn’t let her. possibly due to steroids, possibly just due to anger.

    only question in my mind is whether he premeditated it or got caught up in a fight. just wanted to scare her etc.

  18. RN says:

    I’ve had to stop reading the comments about this story on other online websites because so many of them are completely ludicrous. For example, “I refuse to believe that he intentionally murdered his girlfriend. South Africa is a dangerous place.”

    I live in a huge house in a rural area. I’ve also lived in major US cities. I own guns, and my first response to a noise in my house would NOT be to grab my handgun and start firing through a closed door. This man is completely unhinged, IMO.

  19. GiantGlohearts says:

    I can’t believe his family buy his story? On the telly there are shots of them staying strong, saying everyone has got it wrong. Really? I suppose they just don’t want to admit what a pieces of sh*t he is. You would think they would know what he is like.

    In my paper on the weekend they actually made sound like he doesn’t get a long with his family. Who knows?

  20. Jaded says:

    This is my take. They had a nuclear fight over something, another man, who knows, and he became enraged. She said she was going to leave, went to the bathroom (empty bladder), came back and got dressed. He winged out, grabbed a gun, shot her as she put up her hand in defense (hence the gunshot wound to her hand), she bolted back to the bathroom, locked the door, and he followed her and killed her through the door before he came to his senses. Either with or without his prosthetics, I don’t know from what angle the bullets hit the door. He then bashed the door open, took her dying body downstairs and called his friend INSTEAD of 911 or whatever the S.A. version is of emergency ambulance to set up his ploy. The “I thought it was a burglar” excuse just doesn’t fly. Put the POS away for life.

    • Annie says:

      This is your version based on absolutely nothing though. It’s not even true that the police had been called before because they were fighting so where do these ideas come from? The neighbors only heard screaming before the shooting. Neighbors that live miles away.

      See how the media plants ideas on people’s heads? You’re not there, but that’s all you think you know now. Based on lies printed in the newspaper to sell more copies and gossip.

      No domestic disturbance complaints. No evidence of battery on her body. No shots that implied he was chasing her until she locked herself and finished her there.

      The case is bad enough as it is. A woman is dead. Why do we need to sensationalize everything even more? A secret lover, drugs, domestic abuse, anger issues, alcohol. Why not just go by the facts?

      The police is doing a horrible job. They contaminated the crime scene. They didn’t check his phone to see who he called. They are going by gossip “They say he has a house in Italy and secret accounts.” Do you know this? “No, we heard somewhere.” They don’t even know the distance between his house and the neighbor’s house, who claimed they heard things. 300m and 600m is a big difference.

      It’s just so much bullshit and it’s nothing but a circus just because he’s famous. And people just repeat what they read. It’s all so morbid and horrible.

  21. Rita says:

    I didn’t realize until yesterday that the toilet room was a small 4 foot by 4 foot closet type room inside the bathroom. I find little credibility to his story. He walked up to the toilet room door, not bothering to even turn the lights on in the bathroom and began shooting at the door. He’s going to prison for a long time.

  22. Cazzie says:

    The defense was making a big deal that her bladder was empty – well, duh…right before I leave the house I usually pee.

    Women are most likely to be murdered when they are leaving their abusers – the abuser realizes that he has finally truly lost control over this other person, and that is unacceptable to them. It sounds like she tried to leave him and he killed her for asserting her independence.

    That poor woman. It must have been terrifying.

    Rest in peace.

  23. MG says:

    I am someone who has gotten up in the middle of the night, confused as to where I was and who was in the house with me. Looked for people who weren’t even there until I finally snap out of it and realize what I’m doing. But that’s not even his story. I could see if he said he woke up, forgot Reeva was even supposed to be there, heard something and got scared. But he says he thought she was in bed. Yelled something at the “burglar” yelled for Reeva to call the police and started shooting. Ummmm. I’m sure when he started yelling she would have said “it’s me!!” Also, the weirdest thing to me is why would the bathroom door have been locked if she just went to use the bathroom?? Does anyone in this world lock the bathroom door in the middle of the night in their own house? I NEVER have. She was trying to get away from him. Poor girl. I’m sure the truth will come out.

  24. Theresa says:

    The empty bladder thing is grasping at straws if you ask me. A simple explanation could be that when she was in severe trauma, bleeding out from the gunshots, or simply dying, her bladder could have loosened and the urine exited upon demise, it is a medical fact that the body excretes upon death. Did anyone think to save her clothing and test it for urine? Probably not. I just don’t see how it matters at this point.

    I watched a CNN interview that took place inside of Oscar’s house prior to the crime. They carried out part of the interview in his bedroom. Sparsely furnished, queen size bed. In fact it looked very similar to mine (Ikea wooden bed frame). I find it now more unbelievable that he could not tell that she was not in that bed. Two grown adults sharing a queen size mattress fill it pretty adequately. If he had to kneel down get the gun, probably lift the case up on to the bed and remove it, make sure it was loaded (perhaps he keeps it loaded) and then hobble to the bathroom (for he says he did not have his legs on), I find it impossible that he could not tell that the bed was empty. The room is not big enough the bed is not big enough and even in the gloom of the middle of the night he should have been able to see that the bed is empty.

    That he cannot explain why he didn’t look hard at the bed to see her lying there during the arduous process of getting a loaded gun and getting to the bathroom all without legs is such a red flag.

    Plus the fact that he called a friend first and then asked him to call an ambulance? Seriously, what is the logic behind that? He must have called the friend first, it will be proven in phone records, so he has to admit to the call. But to say he called a friend so that they could call for help? What is he thinking????

    The legal wrangling so far seems to be par for the course. The defense trying to deflate the prosecution’s evidence. But Oscar has put himself on the line with that extraordinary affidavit. If Oscar is so innocent he should have no issue with testifying. Or if I were the prosecution I would be DYING to get him on the stand. That is where you can pick apart his story.

    Unfortunately, not sure if there is a pleading of the fifth in SA. It would be almost a glaring admission of guilt if he were not to take the stand, but if the prosecution can’t pick apart his story directly, it may be difficult to prove him wrong. It is his word against a dead woman. That may be why the prosecution is pushing so hard on trying to prove an argument, or his state of mind (the drugs).

    I agree that we should not rush to judgement. But because Oscar’s statement was released, we have some picture of the state of mind of this man. That is what we are debating. What kind of man comes up with a story like this to explain the shooting death of his girlfriend?

  25. Theresa says:

    Has anyone else thought to question why if he had a guest sleeping over, and he wakes up in the middle of the night and hears noises in the bathroom why his first thought, if it even had to be a thought, was NOT that his girlfriend had to pee?

    Had he been alone, an absolute other matter. But he had a girlfriend with him. He should have been relieved to know that he didn’t have to get his uzi out and shred the room.

    Nope, he wants the prosecution to believe that at hearing a sound in his bathroom his mind immediately starts playing a scenario of a crime-riddled wealthy community enclave, ladders left behind by recent renovators, bathroom windows left unlocked, legs not on, bullying over the years because I didn’t have legs, damn, had to get that fan off the balcony, oh no perpetrators hiding in his bathroom, must get gun must shoot must protect myself… Not once thinking, oh it’s just Reeva taking a piss.

    Holes holes holes, his story is full of holes.

    • Belle says:

      This is the question I keep coming back to. All other BS aside, I just don’t believe any scenario in which he would not look for his girlfriend, or call out to her.
      First of all, upon hearing a noise in the bathroom, this guy decides immediately that there is an intruder? When the most logical explanation is that his girlfriend got up and is in the bathroom? It would take only a moment to check the bed for her.
      Second, even if the guy is paranoid and fearful of having his home broken into… so paranoid and fearful that his mind overlooks the most obvious explanation for a noise in the bathroom, and is SURE there is an intruder. Even in this paranoid, fearful state of mind, why would he not check to make sure his girlfriend is there with him… and safe…. AND alert her that someone is in the house… tell her to grab a phone, hide and call the police??? The guy has no legs… thinks there is an intruder in his home…. yet doesn’t bother to get help from his girlfriend who should be right there, in his bed? Instead, he goes for a gun (still not looking for or calling out to his girlfriend) and (supposedly without his prosthetics) heads to the bathroom and starts firing through the door?
      MAKES.NO.SENSE.

  26. blonde on the dock says:

    I wont go into details. But one night while reading in bed with my sleeping husband beside me I looked up to see a strange woman standing in my bedroom door. I couldn’t scream and I felt frozen. All I could do was make some weird noise which awakened my husband. He saw the lady and chased her outside. I think he was still half asleep and simply reacted. All I’m saying is when something unexpected happens or if you are awakened from a dead sleep you don’t react the way you would normally. It’s possible Pistorious was still half asleep when he thought he heard something and got up. Reacted without thinking.

  27. sam says:

    I have two observations:

    1. If you wake up and think someone is in the house or hear a strange noise, wouldn’t the first thing you do be to wake your partner and get them to hide/be aware/call the police? Or at least reach for your partner?

    2. Its not unusual for someone to use the bathroom in the night. So I find it strange that someone who shares a bed with someone would be so confused by noises in the bathroom.

  28. d says:

    I have to say, reading the hearing at The Guardian’s live coverage link lends itself to a different interpretation of events…there’s way more doubt about intent, imo. I think the premeditated charge may not get proven. And that the scene was contaminated…ug, I don’t think Oscar will go to prison for life on this.

  29. Nicolette says:

    Domestic violence gone horribly awry. He’s guilty as sin.

  30. TG says:

    I think his story is plausible. First off if he shot her wearing his prosthetics why would he lie and say he didn’t have them on? He could have just as easily said I heard a noise in the room so I put on my legs, grabbed my gun and went to check. Why would he make up a lie about not wearing legs when it could so easily be disproved. I was also thinking about this more and realize that if his story is true it would make sense that Reeva was cowering in the bathroom because she wouldn’t realize that she was the suspected intruder so his shouts and whatnot would have likley scared the beejeezus out of her and she might have stayed cowering in the bathroom. However, at the very least he is guilty of gross negligence or whatever legal term they call it for mis use of a firearm. You never fire a gun in your home without knowing where all occupants are. No assumptions are allowed.

    • d says:

      See, this is what I’m thinking too. I can totally see him being a raging, macho idiot making really stupid decisions and mistakes (shooting in the dark, not checking on his girlfriend’s location first, killing her, duh, not really listening, etc.) and killing her without any thought before it kicks in to his head what a dumdum he’s been.
      And with respect to #32′s comment, I can see him doing all that because he’s realized what a mistake he’s made and tried to fix it/save his a$$…(b/c that lines up with the previous accidental gun shot that he got his buddy to cover for) b/c he is still all about Oscar. But.
      For some reason, I just can’t see it yet as being a deliberate act of murder to kill her, in a domestic violence context. I still think he’s slime and his family is ucky and I certainly think he’s trying to duck the charges and play on sympathies…but … that premeditation thing? IDK.

  31. Mich says:

    Oscar Pistorius clearly intended to kill whoever was locked inside the small toilet room.

    The only access into that room was either through the bedroom or through a very small, second story window. The window in question is apparently too small to fit through and too high to navigate from the outside without a ladder. It also faced an enclosed backyard that contained two dogs (one, I believe, was a pitbull).

    Whoever was in that bathroom had NO way out. He knew that and shot through the door into the small room anyway, three times. He also shot once from another location, hence the casing found separate from the others.

    According to his own account, he got out of bed to close a sliding door and get a fan. He heard a noise and went to get his gun. He then tracked down the source of that noise and made the decision to shoot. The prosecution told us today that the forensics expert at the scene believed that he had his prosthesis on given the height and trajectory of the bullet holes.

    All of the above actions require being awake enough to have a basic degree of awareness about what is going on around you.

    In today’s court proceedings, we learned that the holster for the gun was found on the same side of the bed as Reeva’s slippers. We heard that the room was pitch dark with the shades closed – but those shades most likely weren’t closed when he got up to deal with the sliding door and get the fan. And he must have been able to see well enough to retrieve his gun.

    Personally, I believe to the core of my being that this is a domestic violence issue. I had a very dear friend beaten to the point of requiring hospitalization more than once – only to take her abuser back because, afterwards, he was just so very, very sorry for what he had done in the heat of anger.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      I concur. And just seeing this man’s picture makes me want to vomit.

      Once, I had to do a forensic interview with someone who murdered his wife(and clearly did so, it was not an accident.) The court wanted to determine whether he was capable of designating right from wrong as it appeared his defense was going to be an insanity defense. It was hard to separate the woman from the psychiatrist in that case.

      • shewolf says:

        Paranormalgirl your comments are interesting! As a psychiatrist do you see anything in the facts that would lead you to believe he is indeed guilty? You seem dead sure that he is guilty and that there was likely a lot of abuse going on in this relationship. I just don’t see it this way but Im only a forensic osteologist so my knowledge takes me nowhere on this one!

      • bluhare says:

        paranormalgirl: My oldest friend is a social worker for a public defender’s office. She deals with the most awful things daily. If you do the same, my hat is off to you.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        I never said I thought there was abuse leading up the murder. I believe he is guilty because 1 – he is guilty of killing her. He has stated as much, and 2 – the facts don’t add up at the moment. I’m actually looking at this more with my heart than with my head right now, as a woman and as a human being. I just can’t imagine having “accidentally” shot someone I loved and not immediately calling 911 or the equivalent before calling family/friends, as many have said.

        @shewolf – forensic osteology must be interesting as all getout! It always amazes me what can be determined evidentially from bones.

        @bluhare – I don’t do much in forensic psychiatry anymore, it was a rotation but I still occasionally am available to the courts, mostly in family court now. I’m primarily private practice, with some teaching.

  32. saucy says:

    what makes the least amount of sense to me, and confirms his guilt (in my eyes) is that he called his family and friends first, before 911. we are ALL taught as small children, that if someone is in a medical crisis, to seek emergency assistance first. its a gut instinct to call for paramedics first and foremost. secondly, you never move someone in a medical crisis (unless theyre in the path of a train or something). we all know this. if he carried her downstairs to get her help quicker, why did he waste precious time calling someone other than those who could help her most? hmmmm.

    • LeeLoo says:

      THIS!!! Without knowing anything else about the story, the fact that he did not call 911 first suggests some sort of premeditation on his part. It’s like he knew if he played the part of a panicked person and waited for her to die, his chances of getting away with the crime would increase. If it was truly an accident, then he has to be the biggest idiot in the world to not call 911 right away and still deserves jail time.

    • shewolf says:

      This is a really good point and one that I will be following more as the trial unfolds. I really want to hear what the defense has to say about this.

      All I can say is that it doesnt entirely suggest that her death was premeditated. It could have been part of the mass state of paranoid confusion he could have been in.

      I want to know how much time passed between realising he killed her and calling anyone. I wonder if that can be found out though because his word obviously isnt enough.

  33. Chelsea's handler says:

    From the outside it seems he’s clearly guilty. So the fact that he and his legal team are pleading not guilty is fascinating to me. I’m always amazed by the legal mumbo jumbo lawyers can come up with to side step the blatantly obvious.

  34. NerdMomma says:

    Just a question- his guilt is not in doubt, correct? He is guilty of killing his girlfriend. It’s just a matter of the premeditation, yes? I am wondering, if the prosecutors can’t prove premeditation, won’t he still go to prison? Whether he’s an abuser or an irresponsible trigger-happy idiot, he requires punishment. I don’t care which story it is, really, because the outcome for Reeva is the same either way, and I assume he’ll go to prison either way. People seem so passionate about this difference, but I’m wondering how much it matters.

  35. cateD says:

    I do not know whether or not the accused had the motive to kill or injure the deceased. There is a reason why, in most civilised jurisdictions, “similar fact evidence” is inadmissible unless it meets stringent requirements. The reason is that such evidence is highly prejudicial, but of low probative value. Armchair juries forget that there must be evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the case led by the prosecution is accurate. Not each element of the case, but the case as a whole. In this situation, unless there was actual evidence of the deceased having, before witnesses, complained of the drug use of the accused or, in the alternative, evidence of a chemical therein that would inhibit the accused’s decision-making capacity I would rule as inadmissible the presence of syringes, needles etc. Similarly, the alleged previous weapons fire and arguments with girlfriends: if no charges were laid, then those incidents do not prove the actions alleged in this instance. The police are “leaking” far more information than I would be happy to condone. Previous trials have resulted in mistrials due to contamination of the jury pool by removing the accused’s right to a fair trial. By all means, try the accused, but do not try him first in the court of public opinion, because most of the “evidence” in that court is inadmissible in real courts.

    • Lucrezia says:

      ? You’ve missed 3 gigantic points. I’m honestly confused how you could’ve missed them when you sound so educated in the area. I’d have guessed law degree (or at least law student). So how’d ya miss:

      a) In S.Africa it’s impossible to contaminate the jury – there aren’t any – they got rid of the jury-system decades ago. Since there’s no risk of contaminating a jury, there’s a lot more info publically available. It’s not leaks at all, it’s directly from the court transcripts.

      b) The police thought the syringes/drugs were for testosterone-injections. Which absolutely would be relevant (testosterone-induced agression has been used to argue diminished responsibility in several cases). It turns out the police were retards who didn’t read the label (it wasn’t testosterone at all), but it did make sense to mention it when they thought it was testosterone.

      c) This isn’t the final trial. From what I can gather (not a S.A lawyer), it’s kind of part bail-hearing and part process-by-which-authorities-decide-on-which-charges-he’ll-face. I’m not 100% sure, but I’d assume that a lot more stuff would be deemed relevant/admissable in this hearing than it would be for the final trial.

  36. Maria says:

    Empty Bladder issue…As we know and as is a fact, when a person dies, their bladder empties. It can also happen in extreme fright etc. I do not think that the fact that her bladder was emtpy indicates anything at all. Also she could have gone to the toilet at 255 am right before the incident. I dont see why no one has shot this piece of defense down as yet.

  37. Seariose says:

    People are giving this guy the beneift of doubt because he is handicapped. You are all hypocrites. There is proof he killed her and that it was not an ‘accident’.
    If Micheal Phelps did this, everyone would be pouncing on him and not even think twice about sympathzing with him.
    It makes me sick how a person who is special needs can get off the hook.

  38. Ida says:

    For the love of everything that’s holy, this case is already horribly ugly as it is, let’s not jump to even uglier conclusions. That the guy shot her is beyond doubt. That he is a completely reckless, paranoid fuck is also beyond doubt. He is very possibly a cocky little bastard as well. However!, the relationship was very very new, two or three months, which does not lend support to theories of domestic abuse resulting in murder. Had they been together longer then I might have considered domestic abuse, but since that’s not the case it seems unlikely to me. Even actual abusers don’t usually go from nothing to brutal, cold-blooded murder just like that. As for the bladder issue, while it doesn’t *prove* that in the final moments of her life she went into the toilet to pee, it does shed doubt on the idea that she went in there to hide from him. On a related note, had she urinated out of fear while in the toilet hiding from him, I imagine that would have been noted in the autopsy. (I’m open to being corrected on this one.) We’ll find out soon enough in any case since I’m sure it’ll be brought up again. As for the neighbor, the investigator was bloody rubbish, he said first that the distance was about 600m and then 300m. That’s a massive difference and it doesn’t help the case for the prosecution I think. The first thing I thought about though was, how is it possible that someone 600m away is the best the prosecution could do? I mean, didn’t the immediate neighbors hear ANYTHING at all? Or were they not available for comment or something? (Pardon the irony.) It’s all just up in the air as far as I’m concerned. I’m quite interested in what the ballistics will say though. I think that might be what does it, although the investigator was forced to admit that based on preliminary results he couldn’t tell for certain from which angle the weapon was fired. Finally, to point out an important mistake, to my mind, that keeps being repeated here, Pistorius claimed he did NOT have his legs on when he shot Reeva.

  39. Aud says:

    After following the live updates yesterday, it seems as though the investigator is more familiar with Pistorius, so it’s making me wonder if they personally know each other.
    What a sloppy investigation. I still think that there are aspects that are unanswered and don’t make sense. Unfortunately, there is no alive victim and the other side is free to create whatever narrative.
    The two glaring inconsistencies are:
    1. He goes on about feeling paranoid about safety, yet left the balcony door open.
    2. Even if she heard him scream and locked the door (as the defence said/claimed), would she not have answered back to confirm she was in the bathroom?

    The defence tries to confuse by using diversion, like her bladder being empty. Um, when someone dies, their bladder and bowels stop working.
    Also, Pistorius moved the body, so who is to say he didn’t change her into shorts? There were towels everywhere (according to the testimony).

    There is no such thing as justice nor a fair trial when the defendant is a sports celebrity. These people are made into heroes of some kind, when they happen to be some of the most arrogant people in our society.

    The first thing I thought, as the investigating officer started failing the most basic questions was that he was being paid off or too (personally) close to Pistorious to even be objective.

    Also, I had to wonder what resources the ‘state’ had when there were no rebuttal arguments about the forensics (bring in experts). It seems that only the defence could afford to bring in experts. For shame.

    • Mich says:

      There was apparently a bullet hole in her shorts indicating that she had them on when she was shot.

      This is only a bail hearing and the defense is in full combat mode. The prosecution is not and the investigator made it clear numerous times that he didn’t have the answers from the forensic experts yet but that he obviously would by the time the actual trial started.

  40. Erm says:

    I think he’s going to get away with it. :(
    There is enough shade being cast by his defense for him to get off via reasonable doubt. That’s all they need to prove. I hope he gets time for using deadly force against an unseen person (and therefore he couldn’t possibly know if they were armed or dangerous). If he gets away scot free even though he intended to kill whoever was in the bathroom (if people believe his version of events), then that sets a really dangerous precedent. Shoot before you see who it is! Lots more people will get away with murder if that’s the case.
    PS: I read a report that there were two mobile phones in the bathroom, and neither were used to call for help. All I can say to that is that it’s pretty easy to plant a mobile phone after the incident.

  41. vvvoid says:

    The bullets were fired approx 5 feet from the ground. 5 feet is consistent with the height of a grown man’s arms [remember, a man would not fire at the level of the top of his head]]. I doubt Oscar stands 5 feet without his blades on.

    If Oscar was actually “yelling at a Burglar”…any frightened woman would likely start screaming “baby, what’s happening, what’s going on?” so he’d have to hear her voice emanate from that very bathroom he fired into.

    Also, and this varies from person to person but still, Reeva had been with Oscar long enough that I doubt she’d close and lock the bathroom door just to pee or whatever. It’s also inconceivable that she’d lock the bathroom door upon hearing him shouting at what he thought was an intruder, especially if she knew his blades weren’t on last she saw him. She would probably not have hid from the intruder, locking the door just to save her ass, she would likely have wanted to help Oscar. My boyfriend is not disabled and is quite strong, but if we had an intruder in the house no way I’d let him confront the intruder alone, much less if was a double amputee…gun or no gun. So why was the bathroom door locked? Most likely it was locked to keep Oscar out.

    The biggest bombshell of all is that the holster to Oscar’s 9mm pistol was found on Reeva’s side of the bed. If he tossed it there, no way he thought she was in the bed. He knew she wasn’t. I think she fled the bedroom, before or after he strapped on his blades and began attacking/screaming at her, ran into the bathroom for protection and locked the door. She did this either because she feared for her personal safety or because she was upset and wanted to be left alone. Either way, Oscar was probably enraged and wasn’t going to let a bathroom door stop him from annihilating her.

    The way he’s handling this case makes me think he’s a remorseless jackass. Acting like there is no rational way to conclude this was murder,or that a murder took place? Absurd and egotistical. If he really cared about her, if this was really a terrible accident, he’d either be suicidal or so full of self-hatred that he didn’t care what happened to him enough to fight this so hard. If I accidentally killed my boyfriend, I’d be so distraught I wouldn’t have it in me to fight for my exoneration. Especially if the accident was the result of profound ineptitude in judgement and decision making. He didn’t check to see if Reeva was in bed, or if she was safe, or if it was she the bathroom.

    Also: HE SAYS HE SHOUTED AT THE “INTRUDER” IN THE BATHROOM! Does he expect us to believe that Reeva wouldn’t have piped up and said “baby it’s me”? Not once? She’d just sit in there and say nothing, knowing he was armed and overzealous about protecting himself? Come on.

    It is in my nature to want to believe this was a tragic accident, I’d love to believe that, but he’s giving me nothing to work with. I think he regrets not only getting caught but killing her in a moment of rage, but that and a dollar will buy you a jr. cheeseburger at Burger King. Any regret he feels does not exonerate him from murdering that beautiful, sweet, accomplished, high-minded girl cowering in a bathroom.

    Reeva seemed to be a really special kind of girl. What a loss.

    • Nina says:

      1000% agree. Excellent analysis.

      • vvvoid says:

        @Lady X and Nina

        Thanks. I’m pretty dizzy, had to go to the hospital yesterday as my bp was so low I was in shock, so I’m glad I made any kind of sense.

        Lady X, you are spot on.
        The idea that Oscar didn’t think to find it odd Reeva wasn’t making a sound as he shouted to the “intruder”, especially if he presumed she was in the bed in the room with him as he shouted, is preposterous.

        Of course, being that his holster was found on her side of the bed, his claim that he thought she was in the bed is categorically ridiculous anyway and an obvious lie. That’s the Colombo [sp?] moment in this investigation, and his single greatest oversight.

        I also think it’s absurd that he wouldn’t have checked on her first and foremost if he believed an intruder entered the house. What is a man’s greatest fear about an intruder coming into the home where he and his woman are sleeping? Not the theft of a television set, that’s for sure. Most men are going to fear their wife/girlfriend will be raped and/or killed, I’d imagine checking on the safety of your spouse is the first thing to go through anyone’s mind in that situation.

        Above all else, I look at it this way:

        I wake up in the middle of the night. I hear noises. First thing I do is check to see if my boyfriend is in the room with me asleep.If I notice a light on in another room, as Oscar said he did with the bathroom, I’m DEFINITELY going to look at the bed and see if my boyfriend is in it. This would be so automatic, a complete reflex, not something that takes any intentional thought or awareness. I wouldn’t even be afraid hearing a noise/seeing a light on in the house if my boyfriend was in the house with me, I would first assume it was my boyfriend going to the bathroom or the kitchen or something.

        He wants us to believe he woke up to bring the fan inside, saw a light on in the bathroom and heard noises and immediately jumped to the conclusion it was a burglar before even checking to see if it was Reeva. It’s a profoundly stupid defense.

    • lady X says:

      and as we say in the Baptist Church “The doors of the Church are now open”
      What a great summary …
      Also if she had an empty bladder did anyone think to check the toilet for urine ??? I highly doubt she flushed it cause she was shot sitting on it .. and I KNOW after he shout his precious girl friend he did not think to do it .. So my question is where is the Urine?? If it is on her .. than that supports the claim she is in there to hide … but if it is in the toilet then that could help him
      I Really hope they do not over charge him … that is the reason people believe Casey Anthony got off ( I say it was a stupid jury)
      You know when I was coming up I always watched Columbo *I watched re-runs as I was not born when they were on TV* I later went to school and studied Criminology as a fall back … What I always notice about every Columbo was there was always one thing the suspect could never explain away .. that one missing puzzle piece or Question they could not answer …
      In this case it is the “LOCKED DOOR” … See I usually never say “Most” or “ALL” but MOST people … young and in love who probably walk around the house naked and shower together .. NEVER would lock a door to go pee at 3am … No one does that I am sorry … And are we to believe that this beautiful young woman was the exception to the rule …?? Nope not buying it
      Because the only reason you lock a bathroom toilet room is to keep a person from accidentally walking
      in on you .. and usually that is in a strangers home because at your man’s house he known when the door is closed someone is in there
      I could care less about anything else … What stands out to me is
      1 .Locked Door
      2. Open bedroom Window when you say you are afraid of intruders
      3. Shooting before you hear an answer back from the “Intruder”
      4. And not checking on your woman who you as a MAN legs or not are suppose to always protect

  42. elllalt says:

    Just like O.J. and Casey Anthony, we’re going to have to sit and watch another psychopath get away with murder. And all 3 walk away with no dent in their conscience (we’re already seeing it with Oscar), smug that they got away with murder, and looking forward to the book/movie deal.

  43. elllalt says:

    Just like O.J. and Casey Anthony, we’re going to have to sit and watch another psychopath get away with murder. And all 3 walk away with no dent in their conscience (we’re already seeing it with Oscar), smug that they got away with murder, and looking forward to the book/movie deal.

  44. Tia says:

    Okay, am I the only one who doesn’t get the defense’s line of reasoning with respect to the empty bladder? It just sounds to me like the lawyer is saying,

    “If someone is in the bathroom at 3am, they were obviously there to pee. Totally normal!”

    Okay. So, if Oscar’s story is even to be believed, why didn’t that very obvious assumption occur to him before he decided to fire off four rounds into the door? Especially as he had a guest for the night?

    He knew who was in there. And he’s a narcissist for sure.

    • Lucrezia says:

      I don’t think you’ve quite got what the lawyer was trying to say. That line of argument has nothing to do with whether Oscar should have realised it was his GF in the bathroom.

      Rather, it’s about WHY she was in the bathroom in the first place. The defense are saying she went to pee. The prosecuters say she was hiding from Oscar. The fact she has an empty bladder is consistent with the idea she’d gone to pee. (However, there certainly could be other explanations for the empty bladder.)

      • Tia says:

        No, I understand that part of it. Maybe I should have worded that better. What I meant, is that I don’t understand how the defense thinks it even helps Oscar’s case, if true. All it would mean is that the sounds Oscar claimed to have heard in the bathroom would have been the totally normal ones of someone PEEING and FLUSHING. Maybe washing their hands.

        So why on earth, in that moment would it not have simply occurred to him that someone (maybe, I dunno, his guest?) had gone in there to pee? Especially since he couldn’t see anything in the room anyway?

        Anywho, I suppose it doesn’t matter in the end. Just another hole in a completely unbelievable story. This dude’s guilty as sin.

      • Lucrezia says:

        The fact she was in the toilet has to be explained somehow.

        Prosectors: she was there because she was hiding from OP.
        Defense: …

        Seriously, what could the defense say, other than, “no, she was there to pee”? They have to say something.

        I’m sure they’d have loved to reply: “actually, she’d freakily decided to dress as a ninja and crawl along in the roof-space, it’s not suprising OP thought she was a robber”, but that totally doesn’t fit.

        The fact she was peeing doesn’t excuse OP mistaking her for a robber. So it doesn’t help his case in that sense. However, it’s a hell of a lot better for his case than the idea that she was actively hiding from him.

  45. K.T. says:

    This case infuriates me so much I feel like I have to step away sometimes!

    I’ve read a lot and followed the live feeds of the bail hearing. So sad that the policeman Botha is obviously not up to the task of being on trial and some lack of police work may colour thie case to benefit the defense. And the defence is pretty amazing, really and good defense lawyer can make a case filled with reasonable doubt.

    Pistorius killed Reeva, I believe he did deliberately murdered her. As a poster said above in the end it boils down to common sense. He killed her for whatever reason, motive does not really matter in deciding he is guilty. Unless he confesses, which I highly doubt, no one can be sure of his precise motive, but its more imprtant to just know he murdered Reeva.

    Its amazes me that people can still be gullible enough to believe his story. I mean if he really is that stupid to shot an intruder stuck in a tiny box with no escape before asking them to identify themself, well he obviously is not safe in society, or that sane in the head.

    In a country with one of the worst rates of violence against women, also far less advanced in terms of gender quality, and where people commonly say parts of the society are mysogynistic why is it not possible for people to have at least a reasonable doubt that he is not some sort of saint, an image painted by the media.

    1. So even in a three month relationship, there is every possibility he could be angry enough to get his gun and shoot her four times.

    2. I live in a highrise, even with my windows closed I can hear people shouting 300m away or more, especially at night. And 300m is what Botha corrected the amount to. I can also hear even further away dogs barking.

    3. Bladder empty – if they were arguing for an hour its perfectly feasible she used the bathroom earlier. Or she was too nervous to drink much that night of her obviously horrendous death.

    4. He is a gun happy, accident prone (who accidently shots a gun in a restaurant lucky he did not kill someone else), aggressive, manipulative (wanting to break someone’s legs over a previous woman) pro-athlete. I am not sayng he does not have good qualities but he can certainly use his charm and charisma to make things to his advantage. I imagine with this skill, having someone like Reeva not do what he wants must have been very difficult to handle…

    5. There’s just so many factors that make it clear that he killed her on purpose that to try to piece together a fantastical story he made up is not that logical. It appears people who want to believe his story just basically want to believe his innocence and will always have doubt no matter how much compelling, mounting evidence. ‘Nice’ men have killed their partners throughout time, far, far more than people have killed an intruder. And so many believe a famous, attractive man could not have purposefully shot their shortterm girlfriend.

    6. I would not believ everything Justin, his best friend, said in his glowing support letter, also his girlfriend Reeva’s supposed good friend. For one thing why did he call Justin the night he killed Reeva? If I am trying to save my boyfriends life with whatever means possible I am not going to call my best friend and talk about how I killed someone. You would think he would be using his hands to stop the bleeding, puttng pressure on the bandages, carry her to a neighbours house that had medical knowledge…or if not that keep her elevated to stop the blood flow.

    7. If he has a open sliding door when he sleeps he is not paranoid about burglars.

    8. Putting on his leg Prosthetics, geting a fan, finding the gun under the bed (right next to a bed where ihe would have seen if she was sleeping!) it all takes time and noise, the idea that he caanot figure out she is not there is notbcommon sense.

    Okay there is more but obviously I am just going on. I wish he would stop crying in court, every time he crys I just think that man just can’t contol his emotions. Imagine someone that uncontrolled that night he killer Reeva and what she must have gone through.

    • Eva says:

      I couldn’t agree more. I am dumbfounded at the amount of people who are willing to suspend all common sense to make his nonsensical story fit. Just baffling.

    • Eve says:

      @ K.T.:

      Totally agree with you (and I’m just as angry).

      And I fear — like other posters on this very thread have mentioned — that he’s going to get away with it.

    • Lucrezia says:

      I’m not convinced he’s innocent, but I still have reasonable doubt he’s guilty, and I have time to kill, so I’ll play devil’s advocate.

      1) Yes, violence can happen in a short-lived relationship. My sticking point here is that she didn’t have any defensive wounds. So if he did do it, he jumped straight from a verbal argument to shooting. Possible, but unusual/unlikely.

      2) Yep, you can hear from 300m (and I’ll accept 600m was a slip of the tongue). But people are focusing on the wrong thing here. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. That witness (who claims to have heard them arguing before the shots) also said they heard 6 gunshots. Only 4 shots were fired. Memory is a funny thing. You have to be really, really dubious about witness reports.

      3) Agreed. Empty bladder is consistent with the defense, but could have multiple other explanations. I don’t get why people are focusing on this part, it doesn’t prove anything either way. However, it’s the prosecution who have to prove their case, not the defense. So it’s not like this is harmful to the defense. *shrug*

      4) Character speculation. I’ll agree he’s a total ass, but that’s not proof he’s a murderer.

      5) What factors prove he killed her on purpose? Be specific. The detective admitted that he had nothing disproving the defense’s version of events. (IMO, ballistic report will be crucial. If they do find out he lied when he put his legs on, then his defense will crumble.)

      6) Yes and no. What you describe is the sensible reaction. Panic-struck people can do stupid stuff. So (imo) it’s suspicious, but not enough to prove guilt.

      7) Sleeping with the door open troubled me too. However, his actual statement was: “I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.” It’s unclear whether he was actually sleeping with the door open. It’s entirely possible the sliding door was locked and he just didn’t mention unlocking it on his way out. (This really needs to be clarified during the trial.)

      8. Yes, he should’ve seen that she wasn’t in bed. But I can accept that there’s a (small) possibility he didn’t.

      I simply haven’t seen enough proof to convict him yet. That could change as more info comes out. I definitely reserve the right to change my mind.

  46. vegemite says:

    He is a murderer,plain and simple.He is going to get away with it because I fear the judge has already made up his mind and seems sympathetic towards him.Everytime OS sheds those tears(for himself),the judge asks him if he is ok,etc….
    His family piss me off,especially his brother.Dude’s demeanour reeks of a arrogance and cockiness.An innocent woman has died for God’s sake.
    I find the sister’s body language interesting-I wonder if she knows the truth.She is the only one who looks genuinely devastated.

  47. ViloDeMenus says:

    So he lost his legs and HIS BALLS TOO?!! What the hell kind of accident did he have? All I wish for is they take his fancy legs away him prison because they can be weapons and he doesn’t get to be the only one armed in any other fight, because that seems to be the way he likes it.