Oscar Pistorius Files(Because of its international character this page is in English)
Oscar Pistorius is a famous Southafrican olympic disabled athlete who can run as fast as an enabled athlete because of his blades that enhance both his amputated legs just below the knee which gave him the nickname "Blade Runner".
Free after 10 months jail
On the 14th of February 2013 (Valentines Day) he fatally shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, allegedly in the delusion he shot a burglar.
On the 22nd of February 2013 he was released on a bail of 90.000 Euro with the motivation he cannot flee because of his worldfame and his obvious disability.
On the 21st of October 2014 he was convicted for manslaughter on his girlfriend with a penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
After 10 months imprisonment he was released on 21st of August 2015 and is allowed to sit out the rest of his penalty at home.
On this page I will make it evident that this trial and this punishment is ridiculous and proves that not only the Dutch juridicial system does not function properly.
This dossier shall prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt with the charge of postmeditated murder, which means he killed his girlfriend in a rage and afterwards made up an alibi.
That is not as severe as premeditated murder but far more severe than manslaughter because of its ruthlessness, selfishness, disrespect for the deceased and trying to sneak out of a jail longstay.
Portrait of PistoriusFor a short biography: Oscar Pistorius
Facts, events, defenceAt first, read Oscar's defence: Oscar's testimony and other testimonies: Shooting Reeva.
If you told anyone on the street that a boyfriend had fired 4 shots through a locked toilet door which killed his girlfriend, they all - without exception - would presume they had a quarrel and that he must have gone crazy for anger and killed her in a blind fury. There would be no one who would have guessed that he presumed there was a burglar in the toilet. Thus, although it is very likely that this was a crime of passion, and although his story of a burglar in his toilet is very unbelievable, in a court of law you must be able to prove that he shot his girlfriend on purpose without reasonable doubt.
Probable course of events
Burglar in bathroomWhat does a burglar expect to find of interest in a bathroom? Juwelry? An expensive parfum? Or did he had to go?
A burglar wouldn't like to break in a house when the habitants are at home. Allegedly he would have entered the house through the bathroom window. To reach this window the burglar would need a ladder. Oscar was on the balcony when he allegedly heard something in the bathroom (that is troublesome because between the balcony and the bathroom is the bedroom). From the balcony he could look alongside his apartment if there was a ladder but he had not done that.
Why would the burglar hide himself in the toilet, and lock the door? Was he afraid for Oscar? If he would want to hurt Oscar - as he claims - he would want to open the toilet door, and not have locked it.
What would you do if you were afraid there was a burglar in your bathroom? Wouldn't you flee and then call the police?
Even when you had a gun in your hand, you would shout that the burglar should stay in the toilet, otherwise you would shoot, and not the other way around.
Or wouldn't you ask: "Who is there? Is that you Reeva?".
Reeva in bedroomAs Oscar was standing on the balcony and allegedly heard something in the bathroom, he entered the bedroom where Reeva would sleep.
If she slept, it would not be effective to whisper (as Oscar claimed) to call the police. How did Oscar know she was awake? (otherwise you wouldn't whisper). Wouldn't it be more realistic to put on some light and/or to go to where Reeva lies in bed, and shake her awake, and then ask her to call the police. Why not stay together, guard Reeva's life, and call the police yourself? Lock the bedroom door? Go to the balcony again and shout for help?
As Oscar allegedly whispers to Reeva to call the police, wouldn't you then expect her to answer? E.g. "Why Oscar?" or "Sure Oscar", pick up her smartphone which then alights?
Why would Oscar whisper in the bedroom and shout and yell in the bathroom as was his testimony.
Blood on cricket batFact is there was blood on the cricket bat. This cannot have happened while Oscar was banging on the toilet door.
As was suggested in court, Oscar might have hit her with the cricket bat on her head in the bedroom, after which she could have fled to the bathroom. It is still unclear how the blood came on the bat and who's blood it was.
Cartridge in bedroomOne empty cartridge was found in the bedroom. How can that be when Oscar claims to only have shot 4 times in the bathroom? A possibility would be that Reeva succesfully defended herself against Oscar when he beat her with the cricket bat after which Oscar went for his gun. Reeva saw that and fled to the bathroom but got shot in the hip while doing so (this would explain the finding of the empty cartridge in the bedroom).
Toilet door was lockedDespite the burglar story it was very meaningful that the toilet door was locked, even that it was closed
(when I go to the toilet in the middle of the night, I never close the toilet door, I leave it half open and so does my wife and so do our children).
You could ask any love couple or married couple if they went to the toilet in the middle of the night in their own house, and lock up the toilet door.
As Reeva went to the toilet, she locked up the door. Was she afraid for a burglar or was she afraid for Oscar ...
4 shots, yelling and screamingOscar claims to have shot 4 times rapidly after each other. That would plee in his defence that Reeva would not have the chance to scream so that Oscar would be aware that it was Reeva and not a burglar.
The testimony of a neighbour claims that she heard a shot, then screaming, and then 3 other shots. There was discussion if you could hear the difference between a door being banged by a cricket bat or gun shots. But one or the other, they should have heard a lot more than 4 shots/bangs then. The screaming came from Oscar, according to the defence.
The testimony of the neighbour was found inconclusive.
When we look at the toilet door and the 4 bullet holes, bullet hole A is on a different place than bullet holes B, C and D. It supports the theory that Reeva was shot by bullet A, then fell on the magazine rack, and then was shot by bullets B, C and D. Between bullet A and B she could have screamed - which is supported by the neigbour's testimony - in which case Oscar should have recognized Reeva's voice.
Burglar alarmThe appartment was protected by a burglar alarm. Could it be that Oscar switched it off when he went on the balcony? At least it didn't function when the alleged burglar entered the bathroom window. And it didn't function when Oscar carried out heavily wounded Reeva through the front door.
Phone callsIf you find your beloved bleeding to death in your arms, would you at first call your best friend, then your father, and at last call 911?
Mouth-to-mouth resuscitationOscar gave her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation as she still breathed. This is utterly ineffective. It can be an act of panic or Oscar tried to gag her so she could not tell anyone what really happened.
When did he mount his blades?The prosecution thinks that the moment that Oscar mounts his blades is important for the case. He could hobble a bit without his blades.
Everybody is convinced that when he was on the balcony, he had no blades on. When he carried fatally wounded Reeva through the house door, he had his blades on.
Somewhere between these 2 moments he had to put his blades on. According to the prosecution he put his blades on after he shot through the toilet door.
I have no extra proof of his guilt because of any time that he put his blades on. Some when he did.
ResumeFor every fact in the real world is an explanation, cause and effect. You cannot always deduce the effect clearly to the cause, but that when the cause is immanent, the effect must follow. For guilt beyond reasonable doubt causality laws are not always sufficient because the effect is clear, the cause is not. But when there cannot be found a cause for an effect, and that times over, the defence plee is at least doubtful.
Most of the time there are no pitfalls in the defence because it happened as they pleed. In this case there were lots of inconsistencies. The alibi of an alleged burglar, and shoot him 4 times through the locked toilet door is absurd. In combination with all the inconsistencies in the alleged cause of events (his testimony) make him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not of premeditated murder, but of postmeditated murder: a crime passionelle which has been covered up by an alibi that has been fantasized together afterwards.
But that is only my conviction.