I didn't think it was possible for those who physically abuse others to be put in a better light, but Oscar Pistorius has apparently succeeded where no one has gone before.
The thing about physical abuse is that the perpetrator actually has to stand close enough to the victim, and actually work at it. What Pistorius did with a pistol (this is not in dispute) could turn out to be far far worse because he might actually get away with his version of events.
Pistorius shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp to death from a short distance and he alleges through a door, then concocted what appears to be a somewhat implausible scenario of events to the police.
However, its Pistorius's word against a victim who can no longer speak for herself, and, a victim who may have no signs of physical abuse, such as bruises or broken bones. Instead we have an allegedly "accidental" shooting victim, dead.
All it will take is one fool juror (or is it more than one in South Africa?) having just enough doubt to let Mr. Pistorius be found innocent.
It's difficult for a physical abuser to say "it was an accident". Physical abuser's have to rely on something much more difficult to assess for their defense. Did they snap under pressure and just lose it, were they being verbally or physically abused first, and simply over reacted? Either way, if they beat someone, the proof is there (unless of course the person had someone else beat them to set up a person, a scenario shown from time to time in movies).
But Mr. Pistorius used a gun to kill someone, called it an "accident", and suddenly, he actually seems creepier than people that lose control and beat someone.
As for Mr. Pistorius's story, I don't think key points add up. For him to think his wife was in bed, there would have had to be blankets on the bed for her to be under. No blankets, than the presumably white mattress sheets would have easily shown whether someone was in bed or not.
If there were bed sheets on the bed, than why was the fan on? The fan is on to cool the room I presume, so why have blankets?
Whether or not Mr. Pistorius had his prosthetics on, something else doesn't add up as well. If Mr. Pistorius did not have his prosthetics on, his eye line is much closer to that of the bed and that should have made it easier to see if there was a "bump" in the bed where his girlfriend would be as he passed to go to the bathroom.
If Mr. Pistorius did have his prosthetics on, then that means he took the time to do so, and the emergency in the bathroom was not as dire as he has portrayed it.
Plus, this means he was able to see well enough to grab both his pistol and legs in the pitch of dark, yet not see his girlfriend.
And finally, with gun in hand, and a potential invader in the bathroom, Mr. Pistorius now had the upper hand and could easily have kept an eye on the bathroom door while whispering to his girlfriend to call the police.
Is it possible that Mr. Pistorius had to crash through the bathroom door to dispose of any defensive tool Reeva Steenkamp may have had in her possession? I hope they check the toilet and the outsides ground very carefully for any flushed or tossed defense weapon.
And finally, even if Mr. Pistorius was 100% telling the truth, I think he should still be found guilty of being an absolutely stupid human who was incapable of communicating with what should have mattered the most to him, Reeva Steenkamp, in what he thought was a life or death situation FOR BOTH OF THEM, not just him.
Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.