sorrell skye
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,684
- Reaction score
- 7,007
It seems to me, that if OP "felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps", after hearing an alleged "noise" in the bathroom, the simplest, safest, & wisest solution would have been to awaken Reeva, perhaps grab his pistol in case it was needed, grab the key to the locked bedroom door, leave the bedroom with Reeva, lock the bedroom door behind them (thereby locking the alleged intruder in the master suite), and call police after they had reached safety.
It would have probably only taken a few seconds longer than it took for OP to retrieve his pistol, hobble over to the bathroom, notice the bathroom window open, notice that no one was in the bathroom & conclude that the alleged intruder must be in the toilet, & then fire 4 rounds through the toilet door.
No matter how many times I read his affidavit, no matter how hard I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm still very suspicious that his version of events is factual & truthful.
For one: his affidavit was composed AFTER Reeva's death. Yet, he still used these words:
16.11 I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom.
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/
To 'realize' something implies knowing or arriving at a fact. Since there was no 'intruder', it would have been impossible for him to 'realize' that an intruder was in the toilet.
When OP constructed his affidavit, he knew full well that there had been no intruder, therefore, IMO, his language in the affidavit should have reflected his mistaken belief in an intruder (if we are to believe that his affidavit is truthful).
In other words, if there HAD been an intruder in the toilet, it would have been correct to use the word 'realize', because his so-called realization would have been supported by fact.
If he would have used words such as: "I believed the intruder was in the toilet", or "I thought the intruder was in the toilet", it would be a more trustworthy description of events, IMO.
I don't believe he thought an intruder was in the toilet, as I've stated in previous posts. IMO, I believe he knew full well who he was shooting when he fired four rounds through the door.
It would have probably only taken a few seconds longer than it took for OP to retrieve his pistol, hobble over to the bathroom, notice the bathroom window open, notice that no one was in the bathroom & conclude that the alleged intruder must be in the toilet, & then fire 4 rounds through the toilet door.
No matter how many times I read his affidavit, no matter how hard I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm still very suspicious that his version of events is factual & truthful.
For one: his affidavit was composed AFTER Reeva's death. Yet, he still used these words:
16.11 I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom.
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/
To 'realize' something implies knowing or arriving at a fact. Since there was no 'intruder', it would have been impossible for him to 'realize' that an intruder was in the toilet.
When OP constructed his affidavit, he knew full well that there had been no intruder, therefore, IMO, his language in the affidavit should have reflected his mistaken belief in an intruder (if we are to believe that his affidavit is truthful).
In other words, if there HAD been an intruder in the toilet, it would have been correct to use the word 'realize', because his so-called realization would have been supported by fact.
If he would have used words such as: "I believed the intruder was in the toilet", or "I thought the intruder was in the toilet", it would be a more trustworthy description of events, IMO.
I don't believe he thought an intruder was in the toilet, as I've stated in previous posts. IMO, I believe he knew full well who he was shooting when he fired four rounds through the door.