Do you think Oscar Pistorius is guilty of premeditated murder?

Scroll to see replies

Remember that guilty means beyond reasonable doubt. At the moment there is nowhere near enough evidence about the case to be able to say it was definitely pre-meditated beyond any doubt.

Not guilty.

Reply 21

Helenia

Original post by Seaton

Why would she have locked the door when going to the bathroom?

I've lived with my husband for 3.5 years, married for 1.5, and I still lock the bathroom door when I'm going to the toilet. My understanding is that they had only been together a few months, so I hardly think it's something worth thinking about as evidence for either side.

As for the original question, I don't think that the circumstances point towards it being a premeditated murder. Face it, he's rich and powerful and lives in SA - if he really wanted her out of the way, there are people who can arrange that sort of thing a lot more neatly for you than this whole messy situation. I think the intruder story is relatively implausible too though.

Reply 22

Xotol

Original post by Seaton

I would do it out of habit, but that's due to having younger brothers/sisters that don't care about etiquette or aren't intelligent to recognise what a closed bathroom door signifies.

In a supposedly loving relationship...

Even in a loving relationship, what's wrong with locking the bathroom when you need to go to the toilet for privacy? Nothing, it happens all the time. Some couples might do it. Others might not. It's not a good argument either way.

Reply 23

Arturo Bandini

does a crime of passion count as premeditated?

Reply 24

Rgman27

To be honest, before reading this thread, I thought he might have done it. Now, I am not so sure. What would he think an intruder would be looking for in his bathroom?

I think the case will be decided around the testimony of the witness and the screaming.

Also, I doubt Pistorous would lie about walking on his stumps because it is a largely irrelevant point.

Having said that, what he did was insanely stupid. At the very least, he should be sent to prison for manslaughter.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 25

SuziieB

Like a lot of people, I don't believe the story about the intruder. But I wouldn't go as far as saying it was premeditated murder...I feel it was probably an act of rage or blind anger. To think a successful athlete at the height of his career would plan to kill his girlfriend just sounds implausible although not impossible.

So, I don't think he is guilty of premeditated murder. But probably guilty of murder nonetheless.

(Unless they mean the same thing, in which case I am VERY embarrassed right now.)

Reply 26

419

The question of why she locked the toilet is important. The defense haven't put the argument forward that she locked it for privacy reasons, so we can thus disregard that notion as you would have expected them to mention it if it was her character by now. But both side seems to be holding a lot close to their chest so maybe this will come out later but as for now, you can't assume this.

Reply 27

Crumpet1

Original post by Rgman27

To be honest, before reading this thread, I thought he might have done it. Now, I don't think so.

I think the case be decided around the testimony of the witness and the screaming.

Also, I doubt Pistorous would lie about walking on his stumps because it is a largely irrelevant point.

Having said that, what he did was insanely stupid. At the very least, he should be charged for the killing.

What about the fact that the witness lived 300-600 metres away, can't say for certain that the argument that s/he heard came from the Pistorius house, says the light was on (when it now appears that it probably wasn't), and says they heard three-four shots, a pause, then another three-four shots when both prosecution and defence agree that there were only four shots in total?

Reply 28

Xotol

Original post by SuziieB

They are different. Premeditated murder is planned and thought out before the incident, while the type of murder you're talking about is done without previous planning, albeit still intentional at that moment.

Reply 29

Crumpet1

Original post by 419

The defence has suggested though that if you heard someone yell out "honey I think we've got an intruder, call the police" a fairly natural reaction might be to lock the toilet door. The prosecution witness conceded that too.

Reply 30

TheMagicRat

This has got to be the most gripping bail hearing ever. Aren't these things normally done and dusted quickly? It's pretty much taken on the feel of a trial.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 31

deedee123

It's just so bizarre, how could he possibly have shot her by accident? they're also saying that the shots were fired downwards, meaning he had his prosthetic legs on, why would he lie about that? and i think they've found a blood smeared cricket bat in his room...it's just too hard to believe i think, did he not shout? if he was so paranoid about intruders and kept guns, surely she would know this and would of thought better of sneaking up on him in the dark? it just doesn't make sense to me. To be honest, if i'd accidentally killed my boyfriend, i'd turn the gun on myself.

What happens if he is proven to be innocent of pre meditated murder? will he still go to jail for murder?

Reply 32

Rgman27

Original post by Crumpet1

That is what I mean by the case will be decided around the witness testimony when she/he is questioned in court about what they heard.

I haven't actually heard about the inconsistency about the number of bullets used so I think we will have to wait till all the forensics come out.

Reply 33

TheMagicRat

Original post by deedee123

did he not shout?

He claims to have shouted to Reeva to phone the police because he thought their was an intruder. This may have prompted her to lock the door, thinking she would be safe locked in the toilet.

Reply 34

419

Original post by Crumpet1

Yes which again proves my point that people focusing that she locked the toilet for 'privacy' reason are misguided. And anyways, the defense suggestion is simply inference and doesn't makes sense. I'm sure when the time comes, the prosecution will ask Oscar- if this is true, he must've heard the door been locked.

Reply 35

Crumpet1

Original post by deedee123

Pistorius says he used the cricket bat to bash down the locked door once he realised it was Reeva in the toilet. The evidence today confirmed that Reeva's body showed no signs of defensive wounds or assault (which would appear to rule out the 'smacked her head with a cricket bat' theory which I suspect was just the media being foul).

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 36

deedee123

Original post by TheMagicRat

He claims to have shouted to Reeva to phone the police because he thought their was an intruder. This may have prompted her to lock the door, thinking she would be safe locked in the toilet.

i thought she had snuck into the house to surprise him on valentines day? :s i haven't really had a chance to follow the whole thing.

Original post by Crumpet1

where did the blood come from?

Reply 37

officelinebacker

Original post by Rascacielos

I was following the BBC reporter's twitter feed today. By the sounds of it, the defence did well today and the prosecution's argument was weakened quite significantly. Evidence from the post mortem was that her bladder was empty, consistent with her going to the toilet, so it's unlikely that she locked herself in there as a result of an argument. And from what reporters have said, his story was very convincing. Of course, he could just be a good liar, but from what I've heard so far, it sounds like the murder wasn't premeditated, even if it wasn't a complete mistake either.

Of course his story is convincing, he's a professional athlete, he's used to being under immense pressure, he won't have a problem keeping his cool under this kind of scrutiny. He also had a long time to think up a story after he shot her, before the police arrived.

Personally I think that there is one major detail which will be a big point in this case, and that is whether or not he had his legs on.

His story was that he didn't put his legs on after getting out of bed, while the prosecution say he did.

If he didn't then he is at least 18 inches shorter, and that kind of height difference will have a huge effect on the trajectory of the bullets, and it should be possible to tell what height they were fired from, which will show whether or not he was telling the truth about that detail. If it turns out he wasn't then it casts immense doubt on everything he has said, as a fairly major detail like that isn't something that you would ever expect to slip somebodies mind.

Reply 38

Crumpet1

Original post by Rgman27

It's well worth reading this for the full picture of what happened at court today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2013/feb/20/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-day-two-live-coverage#block-5124c7c495cb419168cb4374

Reply 39

Crumpet1

Original post by deedee123

i thought she had snuck into the house to surprise him on valentines day? :s i haven't really had a chance to follow the whole thing.

where did the blood come from?

The bit about sneaking in to surprise him hasn't been mentioned by either the prosecution or the defence. Both of them agree that she was staying the night. His case is that they went to bed at about 10pm - he was watching TV and she was doing yoga. There also hasn't been anything said at the court about blood. It sounds as though the media may have made up both those bits.