<p>I read somewhere that the police theorize Pistorius shot at Steenkamp first, THEN she ran to the bathroom and locked the door. If this were true, it could explain a gap between shots. The really unnerving thing to me is that I can imagine Pistorius thinking to himself that his reputation and career would be ruined if Steenkamp lived to tell the tale. He may have taken the time to think through his justification for “accidental” murder prior to shooting four times through the bathroom door.</p>
<p>It certainly sounds as though he’s been intimidating and violent toward other women in the past. I wonder if the accounts will be admissable in court?</p>
<p>I’ll wager a guess that the Pistorius family has a long-term knowledge of his temper and his ability to lie. They likely know the truth of the situation, regardless of what Oscar has confided. Dad and Uncle seem more interested in placing Oscar back on the track than they do in showing respect and compassion to the Steenkamp family. A win-at-all-costs sort of mentality. </p>
<p>When you put together his history of reckless handling of guns, fiery temper, and aggression toward women, along with the neighbors’ overhearing shouting and a woman’s screams following the first shot? Occam’s razor.</p>
<p>Not knowing SA law but knowing US law - our bail requirement is a version of the common law that became SA law - the main requirements are 1) flight risk and 2) threat to the public. Places differ on how immediate the threat must be.</p>
<p>The hearing seemed to combine elements of a pretrial or preliminary examination hearing. Those are in general to determine if a crime has been committed, by this person, within the jurisdiction of the court. I think in this case the hearing was driven by the charge of premeditation because, as I understand, that means bail is not automatic. </p>
<p>But also in general other countries don’t have the same adversary system. Most empower the judge as a finder of fact, not as an arbiter. Judges often can question witnesses directly. In many countries, they can order one side to call a witness and can require investigators. We tend to believe our system is the only one or the only fair one. Neither is true.</p>
<p>I think it’s a mistake to let him make bail. IMO, he’s a flight risk. His lawyer removed all his financial records from his apartment, so the government has no idea of how much $ he has socked away or where it is. </p>
<p>If it looks like he won’t be convicted–and right now, it sure looks that way–he’ll stay and face trial. If something happens to change that, he’ll leave SA and go somewhere with no extradition treaty with SA.</p>
<p>The thing is…</p>
<p>IMO, Pistorius isn’t a hardened criminal. He knows if killing his girlfriend was an accident or not. If it was murder–I’m not saying it was–Pistorius may have a hard time living with himself. </p>
<p>Obviously, there are people who commit crimes, get away with them, and move on. But I think there are some–if not most–who can’t live with the guilt.</p>
<p>^Agree. Another “Anthony” case, he should be killed the way he killed the girl, starting with the broken skull…animal, he is not a human being .</p>
<p>Foolish indeed. Broken skull? When was that presented as evidence? Thanks to the bumbling of the now replaced detective, I expected bail to be granted. Its terms are very strict. Next court appearance set for June 4.</p>
<p>Hmmm I wouldn’t put him on the same level as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. And I’d say more like an O.J Simpson case. And unlike Casey Anthony, he’s not denying that he pulled the trigger.</p>
<p>South Africa also has some of the roughest prisons in the world. Unfortunately, I think Pistorius’ money and reputation will prevent him from losing this case.</p>
<p>If we believe his version of the story that he shot at the bathroom door because he was afraid of an intruder (how many intruders lock themselves in the bathroom), we must question why he chose to shoot rather than grab his girlfriend and simply flee the apartment?</p>
<p>If the so called intruder was locked in the bathroom and Pistorius feared for his and his girlfriend’s safety, he could have grabbed her and fled the apartment. Why stay there and shoot? It’s not like the so called intruder was running at him.</p>
<p>No one, including Pistorius, is denying that he was at least extremely negligent in shooting through the door. It is extremely likely that he will at least be charged with culpable homicide (defined by SA as the unlawful negligent killing of a human). The punishment is up to the sole discretion of the court and would probably be up to 15 years in prison. The big question is whether this crime was premeditated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A bloodied cricket bat was found and police have reason to believe Steenkamp’s skull was crushed by it.</p>
<p>AFAIK, that is NOT what the testimony was before court. I believe the investigating officer testified that there was no evidence of any injury other than the bullet wounds on the body. There was some discussion over her bladder being empty, but nothing about a smashed skull.</p>
<p>Agreed, calmom. A crushed skull would have been noticed right off. The was never any contention that OP did anything with the bat other than use it to break the door.</p>
<p>I hope I’m wrong but my sad prediction is: in short order Pistorius will have another beautiful young woman hanging off his arm and sleeping in his bed.</p>
<p>I agree with “Hmmm I wouldn’t put him on the same level as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.” - one killed few millions and the second one killed few tens of millions (conservative estiamte is 60 mlns for Stalin). No, not the same, agree. But “slaughter the butcher” sounds like a great remedy to cure normal “I am above you lower mortals” attitude of OJ types…</p>
<p>“I’ll wager a guess that the Pistorius family has a long-term knowledge of his temper and his ability to lie.”</p>
<p>as much as that seems reasonable, you’d be surprised how this may not be the case. My H’s sister has an exH who was violent and his family seemed honestly unaware of it. Some men only exhibit this awful behavior in private towards a female romantic partner, so others are completely unaware of it. Others may be aware that this person gets angry at their female partner, but the lies that are told seem to justify their anger. It’s only after the situation repeats itself with multiple female partners that others realize what the common denominator is. My SIL was lied about constantly and his family believed it. Many years after the divorce and the ex-H has had numerous issues with serial relationships, his family finally believes that their loved one is abusive towards women.</p>
<p>Of course, families are often in denial about their own loved ones, so that’s another hurdle. Even when they’ve witnessed incidents in the past, it’s amazing how they won’t add two plus two.</p>