The Pistorius problem

Hey guys, I don't claim my following thoughts must be correct or anything, but I have to share them with some intelligent people or I think I will combust.Bare in mind, my facts of the case could be inaccurate and would obviously therefore thwart my deductive speculations.Here's the basic facts as I am aware of them.-Pistorius' wife/GF was shot dead by him in a locked bathroom.
- Neighbours heard a blood curdling death-scream, her shout for help, then a man's shout for help and THEN four shots.
- Pistorius claims mistake through suspecting burglars.Personally it's the death-scream that I think leads to many logical tangeants by which we can rule out potential scenarios.The SCREAM. We know there was nobody in the bathroom with her, from the facts of the locked door. My logical question is, can I think of anything that would make me scream for my life in a locked bathroom? No matter how I strain my brain I can't think of anything I could SEE or HEAR from a locked bathroom that would make me scream for my life. And we know the shots sounded quite soon aftwerward.So logically I think, "it can only have been something she SAW or HEARD, BEFORE entering the bathroom", because that explains the locked door. But because the shots fired soon after, the only thing she could have saw, that would make her scream when locked in, was Pistorious with his gun, running after her. If she saw he meant business, if she heard him running to the bathroom with the gun, soon after, she would have screamed having saw he meant business.If it was a burglar, because she was locked in and we know there was no burglar with her, because of the TIMING, because the shots soon came after the scream, this means the burglar would have had to be outside the bathroom. In which case Pistorius would have shot the burglar.No, the timing of the shots means that he is the only thing that could have logically caused her to scream for her life. The neighbours insisted it was a terrible sound, someone only makes when about to die. Can you think of anything inside a locked bathroom that would cause this, given that logically, we know there was no burglar inside because it was locked, and there was no burglar outside because Pistorius was there, outside, and would have shot the burglar.No burglar inside, no burglar outside bathroom, only Pistorious' gun shots soon after scream, only cause of scream is that thing she saw BEFORE entering bathroom, as reasonably there was no other cause of such a scream.Finally, I can't think of anyone, having heard their wife scream, then shooting at the bathroom door, knowing she was in there. (If I have this all wrong it's because I have mis-heard the facts, don't shoot me down, I already know I have likely misheard or miscalculated something, but if my facts ARE right, then I think it's pretty watertight. I don't buy his "help" shout, because I think when he heard her shout for help, this TRIGGERED his mind to the possibility of people hearing her screams, so he FUDGED a scream.)

Black Mamba snake in toilet.

Good thinking. But couldn't she just run out the bathroom?I think for me, it's the shots being so soon after her screams, and his scream for help. He was right there, outside, or very close to her location.I think his claim is a burglar in the house.We know she was locked in. No burglar in there. We know there was no burglar outside bathroom, as Pistorius was there and would have seen the cause of her scream, that being the burglar.He shouldn't have been there. There was no preceding screams, the neighbours were woken by the death-scream, and then, alakazam, Pistorius is right there. Seems from all these facts, Pistorius is the common element that explains all of the other facts.It's all conjectural of course, I would need to know the case in detail more, as to know if I had made a mistake, so I don't want people thinking I am saying that he certainly murdered her, but for me, I think his story is very feeble.

What's a Pistorius?

Since we are dealing with Africa, a poisonous snake or other indigenous creature in the bathroom could be possible.She got up to take a tinkle. She saw the slithering beast and let out a blood curtleling scream.He awakes in a panic and to save her he grabs his pistol and unloads into the locked closed door. Realizing after his sleepy stupor his mistake.

Blade runner. South African olympic bi-amputee track star.

It's not bad thinking, I'm not against your theory, the only problem I see is the TIMING.The death scream, was, as far as I know, immediately preceding his shout of "help" and his shots.This assume he wore his false legs in bed. So for me, the problem is, he got to the door as fast as superman.But perhaps I was wrong, perhaps I misunderstood the ear-witness's statement, she made it sound like these events were close together.If I was a lawyer I would have asked her how close everything was, very specifically, because all of the logic comes tumbling down unless we have a very accurate picture of events.So I am not saying you are wrong mate, I am not going to be that arrogant, I will merely say, that I was led to believe the shots were very, very soon afterward.Haha, I know, I know, it's all speculation but it tends to drive me into compulsive over-thought.

I forgot bathroom-location. A very silly error I made, pretty obtuse of me. Can't believe I only think of that now, and it might have been an en suite given his wealth. *blush smiley* (ahh well, I did say it was speculative. Lol)This is why I usually REFRAIN from speculating about people's guilt, it just seems to me, and almost impossible task to know for sure what happened, unless you go through every fact with a fine-tooth comb.

I think this is quite well-reasoned. I can think of a few objections. This is easy for them to say in retrospect, when they know that she did die. In a South African bathroom? An enormous cockroach. Well, it is possible for people to behave really stupidly under stress. I read Dawkins' autobiography a while back. He tells the story of a relative who was out riding his bicycle during WWII when a bomb fell, and, thinking his house (with his wife in it) had been bombed, threw his bicycle in a ditch and ran home. This, on the other hand, is a point you could have made more of. If the noises came in short sequence, then to suppose Pistorius innocent we have to suppose that he was already carrying his gun around, or was anyway sitting next to it, when he heard his wife scream. Why?On the other hand, we have to wonder why he called for help. It would have taken exceptionally quick thinking on his part to think: "I'm about to kill my wife in a murderous rage, how can I excuse this when questioned?" Or, alternatively, if it was carefully premeditated, then how could he arrange for her to lock herself in the bathroom?---I haven't read anything about this case myself, I'm just going by what you've told me.

I've also been a bit of a victim of second hand information. I was told she was found dead inside a locked bathroom, but now somebody else tells me that was not the case at all. It sounded from the witness, like the shots came after the scream, but nobody seemed to ask her how long after, from her statement I would estimate seconds, from how she articulated but I can't be sure.This is why I am puzzled. I just can't see a scenario by which she would scream, then immediately be shot dead, unless the reason for the scream was that she was about to be shot dead.I know there are other possibilities, there always are, but the one that makes most sense to me, is that she was trying to hide herself from him, in the bathroom.No doubt more facts will come to light, and that will mean that perhaps my speculative theory is all wrong.

One thing to note is that eye witness testimony is actually one of the worst kinds of evidence. People often mis-remember events and their brain will many times fill in the blanks. Also, time can be difficult to interpret in these types of situations. It's possible. But in that scenario, there would have had to be some altercation of some type prior to her entering the bathroom. That could have happened.Point of fact: the vast majority of murder result in the most logical suspect being found guilty. Largely due to the fact that they are the ones most likely to have a motive in the first place.

I assume that the SA legal system, as a Brit built thing, requires the 'beyond reasonable doubt' level of certainty to achieve a conviction. These days that is translated by the judge into 'a such that you are sure' direction to the jury.Without any witnesses and seemingly only circumstantial evidence, that's going to be a hard climb for the prosecution.Also, I heard that he's claiming to have 'been on his stumps' at the time. I suspect that that will play a role.

Yeah I think it is BRD as you say, but there is just a judge, no jury.My gut tells me he did it. But that doesn't mean anything to me. Just as I don't largely value opinions, I also don't value my own so I tend not to have any generally, but in this case I seem to. It's like sleeping on something sharp, it's a detectives kind of gut feeling. Lol. I just can't tie up those loose ends. I guess it's not always about facts, unless we have all of them. It just highlights the importance of acknowledging what we can't know, because what we can't know is always much more than what we can. This in my own experience, makes me very uncertain. Some people think that makes me confused and indecisive but I think it's okay to be confused for complicated reasons, personally. I mean isn't that just to admit that ultimately I don't know all that much? Surely it's better than pretending that I do know?Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I see your point, (like with memory bias). Thanks.

Pistorius forgot to flush?