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.)

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.

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'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.

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.

Now that would be funny, if the judge had stated that. I'd have more respect for her if she had. Colloquial maybe, but at least you are in touch with reality and have the intuition to observe that something wasn't quite right.I understand the innocent until proven guilty rule as millions are innocent and perhaps only one is guilty. To then pick a suspect and say he is guilty until proven innocent, would be totally nuts.....However, the burden of proof itself, is the problem here I believe. The judge is constrained by the law.The problem with the justice system/s, is that they don't allow the burden of proof to shift, they instead FIX it in place even if the facts of the cases differ greatly from one another.Logically this is a problem, because in a case such as the Pistorius case, we have strange circumstances that lead to a genuine rational incredulity. And logically, the burden exists to be placed upon the claim that is most incredulous/fantastical/not plausible/silly/improbable/incredible. Otherwise it should at least be equalized, because one party is claiming he murdered and another party is claiming he didn't, but the strange facts themselves show that he was DIRECTLY INVOLVED.Think about it - it has nothing to do with the positive or negative, it has everything to do with the claim that runs counter to reality. If someone said, "prove you are human", they would have to prove I am not even though they are requesting I prove something, so the burden would be upon THEM because of REALITY.For example, the reason you don't have to prove Christ rose from the grave as an atheist, is because the claim is fantastic. The burden of proof is upon me to prove it.AXIOM: "The greater a claim, the greater the evidence must be to support it."The burden-of-proof should always be placed upon the claim running counter to reality, probability, plausibility, etc...IMHO, for the sake of fairness.With the Pistorius-case, I would say there are enough facts for the burden to be equalized which would obviously mean that both the defense and prosecution would have to equally prove their claims, respectively, and the best theory to fit the facts would then, "win", so to speak. But this rule could only apply depending on the circumstances of each case. For example, if you were being prosecuted based only on tenuous, circumstantial evidence, then the burden should be on the prosecutors. Example, "you were seen in the area of the crime".That's my opinion. I could be wrong but I think it makes sense - some stories people give are utterly counter to reality, they should also have to prove their silly stories. (Dr A would love to get me here and say, "like the resurrection!!" - but don't be opportunist, I am being honest, isn't it enough that I admit that the burden is upon me?)I don't think the resurrection is silly, I am not saying that, I am only saying that claims that go against the inductions that have been observed to churn out the same results forever and a day, don't need to "prove themselves". We accept oxygen, germ-theory, gravity, et al. It is merely reasonable for someone to ask we prove or heavily evidence a fantastic claim.Chances are he was guilty in this case, if we estimate based on the facts. Objectively, all the people I have asked would not pump bullets into a door if someone was behind it, no matter if panicked. The power of having a gun in ones hand gives them the power to threaten and make a loud warning-noise, that alone would be enough to stop people shooting at a door that is closed, meaning there is no threat except behind the door, locked away. It makes ZERO rational sense.Alas, mine is but one opinion, perhaps of little worth. Sorry for rambling.

Yeah that kinda sums it all up your example. Reminds me of the boater-couple who sped into a harbour and went into another boat at speed, ripping a lady's face off. Couple proceeded to look and see how bad the damage was, by hovering there in their boat watching the show, then decided it was bad enough to do a bunk. Forget the ambulance, forget your mistake, forget your conscience, just save your skins incase she dies slowly as you watch.What a lovely world we live in, with such decent people.